Baroness Boothroyd

Lindsay Hoyle: I have the sad duty to inform the House of the death of Baroness Boothroyd, Speaker of the House from 1992 until 2000. I know all Members will wish to join me in expressing our deep sadness on the loss of this groundbreaking parliamentarian. She was a dedicated and illustrious servant of this House. We send our condolences to her family and to her many friends.
Not only was Betty Boothroyd an inspiring woman; she was also an inspirational politician and someone I was proud to call my friend. When she was first elected as the Member for West Bromwich in 1973, there were fewer than 30 women MPs; when she was elected Speaker, 19 years later, women still made up less than 10% of the total of all MPs. To be the first woman Speaker was truly groundbreaking, and Betty certainly broke the glass ceiling with panache.
The sad part is that she was from Yorkshire—I am from Lancashire, so there was always a friendly rivalry between us, but from my point of view it was heartening to hear a northern voice speaking from the Chair. She stood by the rules and had a no-nonsense style, but any reprimands were issued with good humour and charm. Betty was one of a kind, and she was a sharp, witty, formidable woman. I will miss her.
I know Members will wish to pay tribute to her, and there will be an opportunity to do so tomorrow. In the meantime, I invite all Members to join me in a minute’s silence to remember, with respect and affection, a great servant of this House, Betty Boothroyd.
A one-minute silence was observed.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Education

The Secretary of State was asked—

SEN Providers: Rural Areas

Alicia Kearns: If her Department will provide additional financial support to special educational needs providers in rural areas.

Gillian Keegan: I pay tribute to the life of the noble Baroness Boothroyd, who has sadly passed away. As the first and only woman Speaker, she blazed a trail for women, showing us that a  woman’s place is not only in the House of Commons but at the top. Her legacy will live on and long be remembered in this place.
I know my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) is passionate about ensuring that people with special educational needs and disabilities get the support they need. I completely understand the complexities of a rural constituency, as I represent one myself, and it is why this Government introduced additional payments for small and remote mainstream schools, which are currently benefiting 23 schools in Rutland and Melton. More recently, in the autumn statement, we announced an extra £2 billion pounds for schools next year and the year after, meaning we will be spending more on schools than ever before, including £400 million to support high needs budgets from next April.

Alicia Kearns: I thank the Government for that investment in 23 schools in my constituency. However, the families my team and I support are sometimes waiting 40 weeks for a special educational needs assessment, which is a far beyond the six-week statutory period. So may I invite the Secretary of State to meet my local councils and schools in order to understand why we have so many difficulties in rural and small councils?

Gillian Keegan: I thank my hon. Friend for that. All of us will be aware of the huge impacts that long waiting times for diagnosis for autism and for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder can have on children in our communities; many of us will see such cases in our surgeries. To address this, last year we invested £13 million, with a further £2.5 million this year, to improve autism assessment pathways. NHS England is developing national guidance to improve access to autism assessments and we are also committed to looking at improving data on ADHD assessment waiting times to help improve access. I am sure that she will join me in welcoming my Department’s SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—and alternative provision improvement plan, which we will be publishing within the next week.

Munira Wilson: A special school in Oxfordshire is one of dozens of schools that in the past few years have had to close because their buildings were deemed unsafe for pupils. Last week, it was revealed that 39 schools have partly or fully closed for that reason since the general election. With the House of Commons Library confirming that money to maintain school buildings has been cut by 4% in real terms, how will Ministers assure parents of children in both special schools and mainstream schools that their children are safe and that buildings are fit for purpose?

Gillian Keegan: Obviously, it is always important that our children are in safe schools, and we always take action as soon as possible if any concerns are raised within a school. £15 billion has been spent on the condition of school buildings since 2015, but there are also additional funds for adding capacity. We have a lot of work ongoing in this area—not only school rebuilding but condition assessments, with structural engineers in some schools right now, to make sure that we have all the information and data we need to ensure that all our schools are fit for purpose.

Special Schools: Eye Testing

David Simmonds: What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the provision of eye testing for children in special school settings.

Gillian Keegan: The NHS long-term plan will give children with special needs in residential special schools access to sight checks. In addition, my Department trialled a new scheme in mainstream schools last year, Glasses in Classes, which provides a spare pair of glasses for every child who needs one. I look forward to hearing from Durham University and the University of Bradford, which will be publishing their findings on that in due course. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), who is responsible for children, families and wellbeing, will continue to work closely on this issue with her counterpart in the Department of Health and Social Care.

David Simmonds: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. My recent visit to the Eden Academy in my constituency illustrated the importance of vision to achieving educational outcomes. What plans are there across Government to ensure the availability of sufficient and appropriate eye testing, so that children in SEND day schools are able to achieve the best possible educational outcomes?

Gillian Keegan: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, as this issue is really important. My nephew has Down’s syndrome and wears glasses, so I know of its importance, and it was a privilege for me to support the Down Syndrome Act 2022 when I was in my previous role. Free NHS sight tests are available for all children under 16 or under 19 and in full-time education. Children can be supported to access high-street services or referred to the local eye service. The NHS is evaluating its proof-of-concept sight testing programme in special schools, and that evaluation will inform decisions about the funding and delivery of any future sight testing model.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for that response. I was a recipient of those glasses as a four-year-old—that was not yesterday, of course, as everybody will be aware! I went to school at four and had my eyes tested, and I got those circular NHS glasses that people will remember. The point I am making is that early eyesight testing is important. What is being done with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that any glasses prescribed are stylish and able to be worn, and would not in any way disadvantage a person, especially a young person?

Gillian Keegan: I do indeed remember those glasses, which I believe were available in blue and pink at one point. As I said, all children have access to free NHS sight tests, and voucher schemes are in place for glasses as well. In addition, we have Glasses in Classes and the programme in SEND schools, which are being evaluated. It is vital that young people can see when they are trying to learn to read and take in all that knowledge.

Transphobic Bullying

Kim Johnson: What steps she is taking to tackle transphobic bullying in schools.

Angela Eagle: What steps she is taking to tackle transphobic bullying in schools.

Gillian Keegan: The tragic death of Brianna Ghey will be at the forefront of all our minds. An investigation is ongoing and we should not assume the facts of the case. However, I want to take this opportunity to express my deepest sympathy to her family and friends.
Schools should be safe, supportive and calm places where children are taught to respect each other and staff. The Government are clear that bullying is unacceptable. Since 2016, we have provided a total of more than £5.5 million to a number of anti-bullying organisations, including the Anti-Bullying Alliance and others, to support schools to tackle bullying.

Kim Johnson: I thank the Secretary of State for her response. According to research from Stonewall, students identifying as transgender are more likely to report having a bad experience at school or at college as a result of bullying. Can she commit to ensuring that schools and colleges are obligated to record incidents of transphobic bullying, and providing guidance on how to support students to report such incidents?

Gillian Keegan: All schools are required to have a behaviour policy, which will include anti-bullying, and Ofsted holds them to account on that. We also recognise that issues relating to sex and gender can be complex and sensitive for schools to navigate. I am currently working with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities to develop guidance to support schools in relation to transgender pupils. It is important to consider a wide range of views to get the guidance right and we have committed to holding a public consultation on the draft guidance prior to publication.

Angela Eagle: May I take this opportunity to add my thoughts and condolences to the friends and family of Baroness Boothroyd? Voting for Betty to become the Speaker was the first vote in which I ever took part in this House. In the five years that that Parliament took up, I think that it was the only vote that we won.
Research shows that LGBT+ young people are twice as likely to be bullied as their peers in school. For trans pupils, this can be even worse. The Secretary of State’s predecessor promised last September to issue draft guidance on supporting trans pupils. It still has not appeared, so can the Secretary of State tell us when this guidance will appear, as pupils need it and teachers are crying out for it?

Gillian Keegan: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I know that that guidance is very much required and that schools are waiting for it. We are working on it—I am working on it right now with the Women and Equalities Minister—but it is very important that we get it right and have a long consultation on it, because, as we know and as we have seen, this is quite a sensitive topic, and we do need to treat it very sensitively. We are working on it.

Miriam Cates: At least 80% of schools now have children with trans identities, up from just a handful a decade ago. Vulnerable children, especially those who are autistic, have been abused or are in care, are significantly over-represented among children who report gender distress. But instead of safeguarding these children, many schools continue, possibly unlawfully, to encourage or affirm their transition, leading them down a potentially irreversible path towards sterility and exploitation. This is the safeguarding scandal of our generation, yet the Department still has not produced this guidance for schools, despite the reports of Dr Hilary Cass. What are the delays to this safeguarding guidance being produced?

Gillian Keegan: I would not say that there are delays, but we are working right now to get the guidance right. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also be speaking to the Minister for Women and Equalities to make sure that all the views are represented. It is very important that we protect victims of bullying and hate-related bullying, including those who also have special educational needs. As we know, there are many crossovers between those who are different for different reasons and get an increased amount of bullying, and we must do everything we can to stop that.

David Evennett: Alongside young people’s academic recovery, surely supporting their mental health and wellbeing must be a priority in all of our schools. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this Government are investing an extra £7 million this year to train senior mental health leads for schools and colleges?

Gillian Keegan: Yes, I can confirm that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have been investing in senior mental health leads in each school. On top of that, mental health support teams are being rolled out across schools. I think it is about 26% of schools at the moment, and the target is 35% by 2024-25.

Reading Standards

Andy Carter: What steps her Department is taking to improve reading standards.

Nick Gibb: Since the introduction of the phonics screening check in 2012, in which every six-year-old is tested on their ability to read simple words, the proportion reaching the expected standard has increased from 58% to 82% in 2019—before the pandemic. England has risen from joint 10th to joint eighth in the international survey of the reading ability of nine-year-olds in the Pearl study, in which we achieved our highest ever score. There is, of course, more to do to ensure that every school is teaching phonics as well as the best schools. That is why we have invested £40 million in the English Hubs programme, which spreads best practice in the teaching of reading.

Andy Carter: I was at Park Road Community Primary School in Warrington on Friday morning, seeing phonics in action. Studies have shown that 80% of children with dyslexia do not have the condition identified before they leave school, and unfortunately too many find themselves in alternative provision because behavioural issues start to develop, stemming from a lack of understanding of a  child’s learning style. Does my right hon. Friend agree that early screening and earlier intervention can level the playing field and enable them to develop skills in a way that is suited to their learning style?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Early identification of any special educational need or support requirement is critical to improving the outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, including those with dyslexia. We already have a number of measures to help teachers do that, including the phonics screening check and statutory assessments at the end of key stages 1 and 2.

Alan Brown: Hungry children cannot learn, which affects their reading standards and their chances in life, and there is a clear link between undernourishment and lower academic attainment. The Scottish Government have committed to free school meals for all primary school children. Is it not time for the UK Government to consider doing the same thing?

Nick Gibb: Of course, it was this Government who introduced the universal infant free school meal, which means that 1.25 million children in infant schools are receiving a free school meal. We have increased from 1.7 million to 1.9 million the number of children eligible for free school meals, so thanks to this Government something like a third of children today are receiving a nutritious meal at lunchtime in our schools.

Local Skills Needs

Ben Spencer: What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that education and training programmes meet local skills needs.

Mark Menzies: What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that education and training programmes meet local skills needs.

Robert Halfon: We are working with colleagues across Government and put employers at the heart of local skills systems, with the roll-out of 38 local skills improvement plans. These employer-led plans will help ensure that skills provision better meets the needs of employers, and we are also ensuring that apprenticeships, T-levels and higher technical qualifications are all employer-led qualifications.

Ben Spencer: At a schools and skills meeting that I hosted a few weeks ago in my constituency, bringing together businesses and school leaders to enhance opportunities, a representative from a special educational needs school reminded us of the importance of these opportunities for all children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that work and training opportunities are essential for those of all abilities and all ages, including those with special educational needs or living with disabilities?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is a champion of schools and skills in his constituency. He is absolutely right to have a passion for making sure that children with disabilities or special educational needs have a  chance to climb the skills ladder of opportunity. We are investing £18 million to try to help those SEND students with employment opportunities, as well as ensuring that careers guidance helps them at every step of the way to get the career chances that they deserve.

Mark Menzies: This Friday, pupils from Carr Hill school in my constituency will attend an event celebrating BAE Systems and CREATE Education’s Inspiring Lancashire programme. More than 2,000 pupils have participated in the programme over the past year. It has introduced them to the digital skills that are vital to Lancashire’s continued success as a hub for high skilled, well-paid technical jobs. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to encourage businesses to get involved in education and skills?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is a champion of skills as well. It is very good news that that school is promoting careers and working with BAE, which does so much for apprenticeships. Some 90% of schools and colleges are now part of our careers hub. I am very pleased that Lancashire has had 10,000 apprenticeship starts since last year and was an early adopter of T-levels.

Emma Hardy: Some 740 people from Hull West and Hessle have had their university applications accepted, and 35 of them will attend higher education in the constituency, which will help us meet our local skills needs. The Department for Education’s own equality impact assessment, published in February, stated that the rise in student loans and grants
“will overall have a negative impact for students”.
I believe in equality of opportunity, as does the Labour party, but it is impossible when students face insurmountable financial barriers to learning. When will the Government ensure that all students have the financial resources that they need to succeed?

Robert Halfon: We have to be fair to students and fair to the taxpayer. Many people do not go to university but pay their taxes. We have increased to £276 million—a £15 million increase—the money given to the Office for Students from which universities can draw down to help students who face financial difficulties. We have frozen the loan—in 2025, it will not have had an increase for seven years. Students who face difficulties can also get bursaries from universities.

Barry Sheerman: I, too, am mourning Betty’s death today. We were friends even before I got into Parliament. What a feisty woman, right to the end. Were it not for her, you would probably still be wearing a wig, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] I know that is your own hair, Mr Speaker.
I think the Minister is being entirely complacent. A huge number of young people in our country, when little children, are identified as clever, bright and really intelligent at primary school, up to the age of 11, but when they get to big school they disappear and do not achieve very much. Why is that, and why have this Government done so little to rectify it since 2011?

Robert Halfon: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s narrative. In my area of skills, more than 5 million apprenticeships have started since 2010. Over the past decade we have invested in skills in a way that we never  had before—over £3.8 billion. We have massively improved our schools, and I think 88% are now rated good or outstanding. We have a narrative in which we are delivering on education and skills. I completely reject what he said.

Pupil Attainment: Cost of Living

Virendra Sharma: What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of increases in the cost of living on pupil attainment.

Nick Gibb: Raising academic standards is at the heart of the Government’s education agenda. We routinely assess the impact on student attainment of a range of factors, including the cost of living. The schools budget will increase by £3.5 billion in 2023-24, combined with a £4 billion increase in the schools budget for this year. That amounts to a 15% increase in just two years. The pupil premium is rising to about £2.9 million in the next financial year, and it is supporting schools to improve outcomes for disadvantaged students.

Virendra Sharma: The children at Dormers Wells Junior School in my constituency wrote to me about the challenges that they face with the cost of living crisis. Children should not have to worry about their next meal or about going back to cold and dark homes, but as this crisis marches on, pupils are increasingly exposed to those harsh realities. To combat this pressing situation, will the Government commit to starting new breakfast clubs in primary schools and to creating bursaries for the families most affected by the cost of living crisis?

Nick Gibb: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about these issues. The Government are committed to supporting the most vulnerable households, with £26 billion of support announced for 2023-24. That is in addition to the £37 billion of support for households to deal with the cost of living this year. The Government are also committed to continuing the support for school breakfasts. In November last year, the national school breakfast programme was extended, and the Government are providing up to £30 million under the programme, which will support something like 2,500 schools.

Caroline Dinenage: The cost of living is not the only impact on pupil attainment. Around 4,500 children every year are diagnosed with cancer, and prolonged absences from school and the ongoing impact of treatment mean that they can expect worse educational outcomes. Currently, provision of access to education, health and care plans is not universal for children with cancer, and it can be long-winded and patchy. What thought has been given to automatic entitlement to EHCPs for all children with a cancer diagnosis, and will the excellent Minister meet me to discuss the issue?

Nick Gibb: I will of course meet the excellent former Minister to discuss this important issue. Of course, the special educational needs and alternative provision improvement plan will be published shortly, but I do share her concern. One issue that has come out of covid is that more remote learning is now available at home for children who are unable to get to school for whatever reason, and that will of course apply to children in hospitals as well.

Stephen Morgan: Energy bills have jumped 300% in some schools, forcing many I have spoken with to increase class sizes, strip back their curriculum and make impossible decisions on what resources or staff members to cut to balance the books. Does the Minister accept that the cost of living crisis made in Downing Street is having a direct impact on the quality of education that children across the country are receiving?

Nick Gibb: The hon. Member may have missed the autumn statement, but we added £2 billion to next year’s school funding, meaning that it will rise by £3.5 billion next year. By 2024-25, we will be spending record amounts in real terms and per pupil on our schools. We take education extremely seriously and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education said earlier, that is resulting in standards rising in our schools, with better reading, better maths, better attainment, higher quality and a higher proportion of schools graded good or outstanding—88%, compared with 68% when the Labour party left office in 2010. Of course, as I said earlier, we are also providing households with £26 billion of support for 2023-24.

Carol Monaghan: First, on behalf of SNP Members present, I join other Members in paying tribute to Betty Boothroyd. I did not know Betty personally, but I am certainly well aware of her legacy, and I pass on our condolences to her family.
The Chancellor has recently received an unexpected £5.4 billion surplus due to higher than expected tax receipts. We know that hungry children cannot learn effectively, and the Scottish Government have committed to providing free school meals for all primary school children in Scotland. What discussions has the Minister had with Treasury colleagues, and indeed the Chancellor, on using a tiny part of that surplus to provide free school meals for all children in England?

Nick Gibb: Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has frequent meetings with the Chancellor. Indeed, in her first few weeks in office she achieved an extra £2 billion of funding for our schools, bringing the increase next year to £3.5 billion. As I said earlier, the Government have extended free school meals to more children than any other Government over the past half-century. We remain committed to ensuring that the most disadvantaged children continue to be supported.

Home-schooled Children Register

Marie Rimmer: What progress her Department has made on developing a register of home-schooled children.

Claire Coutinho: We support the right of parents to educate their children at home, provided that is suitable. We know that there has been a rise in the number of children off-rolling since the pandemic. We remain committed to introducing local authority registers and will legislate for these as soon as possible.

Marie Rimmer: An increasing number of children are being educated at home, partly as a legacy of the covid pandemic. I am sure that many of those children are receiving a good education. However, local authorities still have a duty to ensure that resident children are receiving a suitable education. It is essential that local authorities are notified of children who are being educated at home, but at the moment there is no legal obligation for them to be notified by the parents. Given that we are talking about those children’s futures, will the Secretary of State ensure that any form of register is introduced sooner, rather than later?

Claire Coutinho: The hon. Lady is right, and this is an issue that the Government take very seriously. The Minister for Schools and the Children’s Commissioner for England recently chaired a roundtable on children missing in education, and we are engaging with local authorities and building a clearer picture through use of data, as well as establishing better attendance data across schools and trusts. We are committed to legislating at the earliest possible opportunity.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

Robin Walker: I welcome my hon. Friend’s answer but, as she will know, having a statutory register of children not in school has been a very long-standing recommendation of the Select Committee. I believe that recommendation is supported across the House, so can I urge her to make sure that legislation comes forward at the first available opportunity, delivering on what I think the Secretary of State has already said is her top legislative priority?

Claire Coutinho: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. This is a really important area. As I have said, we are working in the interim to do a lot of things regarding data to make sure that we can keep track of attendance. We are seeing what we can do in the meantime, but I absolutely commit to legislating at the earliest possible opportunity.

Children’s Services

Selaine Saxby: What steps her Department is taking to support local councils in delivering children’s services.

Claire Coutinho: We spend close to £11 billion on children’s services, helping some of our most vulnerable children through challenging times. In addition, we recently set out an ambitious package of reforms, the “Stable Homes, Built on Love” strategy, backed by £200 million, and our improvement and intervention programme is working, with 58% of local authorities now rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted, compared with 36% in 2017.

Selaine Saxby: Given the issues surrounding Devon’s children’s services, is it possible to look for a granular solution that recognises the differences between the more urban south and the rural north of the county; one in which more localised solutions such as the northern opportunity area can be considered, as well as expediting the Government’s promised funding safety valve?

Claire Coutinho: I thank my hon. Friend, who has raised this issue consistently on behalf of her constituents. It is important that we see an improvement in children’s services in Devon, and I recently met the council leader and the chief executive to stress how important that is to us. Nothing is off the table, and I reassure my hon. Friend that the safety valve case remains open and still under discussion.

Andrew Gwynne: I represent a cross-borough constituency, so unfortunately I have to see two of everything, deal with two of everything, and experience two of everything. The differences between the children’s services of my two local authorities could not be more stark. I appreciate that the Minister has said that children’s services have improved, but how do we get those councils that are stuck in a rut to improve far more quickly, so that children in both parts of my constituency have the best life chances?

Claire Coutinho: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. That is exactly what our reforms are hoping to do. We have set out things such as a new national framework and are looking at things like the agency cap. [Interruption.] Somebody has just mentioned our record; as I have just said, in recent years we have managed to increase the number of local authorities rated as good or outstanding from 36% to 58%, and we will continue to do everything we can to improve that.

Secondary Education: Isle of Sheppey

Gordon Henderson: What steps she is taking to improve secondary school education on the Isle of Sheppey.

Nick Gibb: It is critical that secondary education on the Isle of Sheppey improves. Following Ofsted’s judgment that the island’s only secondary school was inadequate, the Department for Education and the incumbent academy trust, Oasis Community Learning, have mutually agreed to transfer the school to another trust. That work is underway, and in the meantime Oasis is continuing to work to improve the academy.

Gordon Henderson: The Isle of Sheppey, which makes up 40% of my constituency, has just one large academy split across two sites, two miles apart. Sittingbourne, on the other hand, has five good secondary schools. Because of the lack of choice on Sheppey, many parents send their children to the mainland. That results in 1,000 children being bused to the mainland every day, which is putting enormous pressure on Sittingbourne’s schools. Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents on Sheppey deserve the same quality of secondary education as is offered to those on the mainland? If so, will he support my campaign for the current Isle of Sheppey academy to be replaced by two schools, one specialising in academic subjects and the other offering a vocational and technical curriculum?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend and I have discussed the provision of secondary education on the Isle of Sheppey on many occasions, and I pay tribute to him for his strong advocacy for higher school standards in every part of his constituency. He makes compelling arguments  about the school being on two sites, which are two miles apart. The combined school has a capacity of 2,400 pupils —more than enough for two schools. Currently, the Oasis Academy Isle of Sheppey is being moved to a new multi-academy trust, and I look forward to working with that new trust and my hon. Friend to ensure that we are delivering the quality of secondary education that he wants for his constituents and that parents in his constituency are demanding.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Stephen Morgan: The Government missed their secondary teacher recruitment target by 40% this year, meaning that more and more children on the Isle of Sheppey and across the country will be taught by non-specialist teachers and will be attending schools that are woefully understaffed. In the midst of a teacher recruitment and retention crisis, does the Minister really think that removing a quarter of teacher training providers will help address that crisis?

Nick Gibb: The accreditation of teacher training providers resulted in 179 very high-quality teacher training providers being accredited. A number failed the accreditation, but we want to ensure consistency of teacher training in our system. In terms of teacher recruitment, there have been challenges with secondary education teacher recruitment this year post covid. Recruitment is a problem right across the economy, not just in teaching, but prior to the covid pandemic we were recruiting near to our targets, and in primary education we exceeded those targets.

SEND Support

Vicky Foxcroft: What steps she is taking to improve support for children with special educational needs and disabilities and their families.

Kieran Mullan: What steps she is taking to improve the provision of education for students with special educational needs and disabilities.

Claire Coutinho: This is an area that the Secretary of State, given her former role in the Department of Health and Social Care, and I, as a former Minister for disabled people, take seriously. Getting our educational offer right for children with special educational needs and disabilities is hugely important, and I will be responding to the SEND and alternative provision Green Paper within the next week.

Vicky Foxcroft: At my surgery, I met a constituent who is a teacher at a SEND school. She broke down in tears as she told me how they are struggling to support their pupils because their budgets are stretched to breaking point. In Lewisham, increased need is costing £5 million a year more than the council’s SEND budget. When next week—if I heard that right—will the Government finally follow up on their Green Paper and publish their plans to fix this mess? Those vulnerable children and their families need proper support.

Claire Coutinho: I will be responding to the SEND and AP Green Paper within the next week. We have increased funding massively in this area—it is up by 50% in the past three years. I struggle to think of another area of government that has risen that fast. This is about spending well and making sure that all the pupils who need help can get it as soon as possible.

Kieran Mullan: We struggle with SEND provision in Cheshire, both in terms of special school places and support for children in school. Can the Minister outline the steps that the Government have taken to increase provision to build on the upcoming expansion of Springfield School in my constituency, and also join me in congratulating the school on its amazing achievement of being named school of the year last year in the national schools awards?

Claire Coutinho: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Springfield School on its outstanding achievement—he has often bent my ear about the head, Lisa Hodgkison, and the tremendous work she is doing there. We are investing £2.6 billion to increase the number of specialist school places across the country.

Adult Upskilling

Andrew Jones: What steps her Department is taking to support upskilling opportunities for adults.

Antony Higginbotham: What steps her Department is taking to support upskilling opportunities for adults.

Robert Halfon: We have a range of programmes designed for adults to upskill. Skills bootcamps are free flexible courses of up to 16 weeks, offering learners the opportunity to develop skills with the offer of a job interview, and we delivered 16,120 training places over the last year, 2021-22. Following the commitment of £550 million at the spending review in autumn 2021, we are making thousands more training places available.

Andrew Jones: Harrogate College in my constituency can, in certain circumstances, contribute towards childcare to help adults study, when that is a factor preventing them from upskilling. Will my right hon. Friend be reviewing what more can be done to remove any barriers that prevent adults from renewing and updating their skills?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is a champion of Harrogate College, and I do not think he will have any problem with his college doing the things he has described, because it has been recognised as having an outstanding adult learning programme. It has been allocated more than £400,000 from the adult education budget this academic year to help the adults in the non-devolved areas, including Harrogate.

Antony Higginbotham: The advent of areas such as artificial intelligence, automation and robotics means that the jobs of tomorrow could look very different from the jobs of today and require very different skillsets. In Lancashire, the new institute of technology that is  being established will be key to that. It will bring together Burnley College and the University of Central Lancashire from my constituency, as well as providers and employers from all over the counties. For opportunity to be shared equally, however, we need to ensure that those already in work have the chance to develop and reskill for the future. Will my right hon. Friend confirm how the Government will ensure that IOTs benefit adult learners looking for opportunities to reskill?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight institutes of technology; we are investing £300 million in 21 around the country, which is an example of the Government’s investment in skills. He will know that the Lancashire and Cumbria IOT is a collaboration between further education colleges, universities and employers driving an employer-led curriculum to meet local skills needs in science, technology, engineering and maths. IOTs are involved in the regeneration of areas such as Blackpool and are expected to commence delivery from September.

Alyn Smith: All hon. Members agree that the skills agenda is vital for the future of the economy, but the loss of the European social fund has been devastating for skills providers. Surely the Minister agrees that the UK Exchequer should match the ESF money lost across all four home nations.

Robert Halfon: These matters are, of course, for the Treasury, but I am proud that the Government are investing £3.8 billion extra in skills over this Parliament, as well as £2.7 billion in apprenticeships.

Margaret Ferrier: Polling has found that 46.4% of workers said that they would learn a new skill if it were free for them to do so, but colleges and educational institutions do not have the funding to put on the courses required. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Business and Trade about the economic benefit of upskilling the workforce? What plans do the Government have to do that?

Robert Halfon: We are upskilling the workforce all the time—that is behind the Government’s approach. We are investing in resources, as I mentioned, and £3.8 billion extra is being spent on skills during this Parliament. We are investing in recruitment, FE resources and bursaries for FE college tutors in key subjects, such as STEM. Everything that the Government are doing—investing in quality qualifications and resources, and working with business—is to ensure that our country has the skills that we need.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Matt Western: YouGov polling published today shows that 40% of workers want to learn a new skill to get a better job, and almost as many want to see more investment in skills. The Conservatives have had 13 years to deliver, yet almost 4 million fewer adults are taking part in training now than in 2010 and part-time study has plummeted by 50%. Given their pitiful record on this important agenda, is it not finally time for a Labour Government to take the reins?

Robert Halfon: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s question; he is a thoughtful shadow spokesman. As I have already highlighted, we have a proud record on skills in this country. We have had more than 5 million apprenticeship starts since 2010 and we are developing high-level, prestigious vocational qualifications in the T-levels and higher technical qualifications. We are offering free level 3 courses to thousands of people, as well as the bootcamps that I mentioned earlier. Whichever way we look, the Government are giving young people and adults a skills ladder of opportunity, at the top of which is job security and prosperity. That is possibly why—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call Theresa Villiers.

Affordable Childcare

Theresa Villiers: What steps she is taking to improve access to affordable childcare.

Claire Coutinho: Improving parents’ access to affordable childcare is a Government priority. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to deliver the childcare choices campaign to raise awareness among parents and providers of the Government-funded subsidies available to support families.

Theresa Villiers: With the Budget coming up, will the Government look at how reducing the cost of childcare could help productivity by supporting women who want to go back into the workplace and bringing back over-50s who may have retired early partly to look after grandchildren?

Claire Coutinho: My right hon. Friend is right that childcare is about supporting women and parents into the labour market. We want to support families and are exploring options to achieve this. The Government have delivered a huge amount on childcare, including doubling the 15-hour entitlement for working parents of three to four-year-olds to 30 hours and introducing 15 free hours for disadvantaged two-year-olds.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Helen Hayes: On Saturday, I met a constituent who was about to return to work from her maternity leave after having her second child. Her childcare costs for a three-year-old and a one-year-old will be £2,700 a month. Spiralling childcare costs are an unbearable cost of living pressure for many families, so what discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury about tackling this unsustainable pressure, and can parents and providers expect to see the urgent change that is needed in the forthcoming Budget?

Claire Coutinho: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I understand that it is a challenging time with the cost of living and with childcare. I would say it is the Conservative Government who have done the most of any party to expand hourly entitlements. We expanded the hours for three to four-year-olds, we have introduced  15 hours for disadvantaged two-year-olds, we have introduced the holidays and activities fund—by the way, 70% of those participating in 2021 said that they had never been to anything like that before—and we have doubled the number of families in recent years who have taken up tax-free childcare.

Topical Questions

Afzal Khan: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Gillian Keegan: Last Friday marked one year since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. All of us in the House should be proud of the support our country has provided to Ukrainians, both at home and abroad. I want to take the opportunity to thank all of our schools, colleges and universities for their steadfast support of children and young people fleeing this horrific conflict. To date, our schools have welcomed over 20,000 children from Ukraine, and in my own constituency we have welcomed over 245 children. By coincidence, one of them won my recent Christmas card competition—a very talented six-year-old called Anastasiia, whom I met along with her mother at St Joseph’s primary school in Chichester. She is thriving, which is testament to the incredible role our schools are playing to support children who have lived through something that none of us could imagine. Our nurseries, schools, colleges and universities have stood up for the people of Ukraine, and this Government and this country—and this House—will always stand with Ukraine.

Afzal Khan: I recently met students at Manchester University who are deeply concerned about the quality of student housing and, like all of us, are feeling the incredible strain of the Tory cost of living crisis. The Government’s failure to properly manage student maintenance loans will mean that students are £1,500 worse off in real terms. Can the Secretary of State tell me why the Government are punishing students like this?

Gillian Keegan: Of course, we always want to support our students, and we have been increasing the maintenance loan. We have kept the fees flat as well, and we have increased the hardship fund. However, I know this is a concern, particularly in some big cities where housing costs have gone up and where perhaps there is a shortage of housing available for students as well. We do urge universities to act on this, because we have seen some crunch points where there is not enough housing, which can create pressure on students’ budgets.

Rob Butler: JCL Glass, a really successful family business in my constituency, wants to offer apprenticeships, but its directors tell me that there is no scheme in the glass manufacturing industry. Will my right hon. Friend set out what efforts are being made to create apprenticeships in sectors that do not yet have them, and how companies that want to be involved, such as JCL Glass, can help to develop them?

Robert Halfon: Employers have developed 660 high-quality apprenticeships, including 150 in the engineering and manufacturing sector. Where employers  identify the need for new and emerging skills, including in green jobs, they can work with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, which stands ready to work with employers to introduce new apprenticeships. I would encourage JCL Glass to speak to the institute about this.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Bridget Phillipson: May I begin by joining the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State in recognising the tremendous contribution of everyone right across education in welcoming Ukrainian refugees to our country, and reiterate our commitment, right across the House, to facing down Russian aggression?
Last week, the Leader of the Opposition set out that spreading opportunity through reform of our childcare and education systems will be a central mission of the next Labour Government. By contrast, the Prime Minister fails to identify education as a priority for his Government. Can the Secretary of State explain why?

Gillian Keegan: I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has finally recognised education, because every other speech he has given did not mention it at all. The education of our children is vital, and standards and quality are also important. Since 2010, we have been making sure that the standards of our education for children give them the best opportunity to thrive in life. We have increased access to free childcare, and we have changed school standards, ensuring that all our kids are doing much better in much better schools. We have increased the number of good and outstanding schools, and increased skills training. We have introduced T-levels, we have introduced apprenticeships—we have done endless things, and every one of them has been done to increase quality.

Lindsay Hoyle: I remind Front Benchers that many people want to get in at topical questions, which are meant to be short and punchy. Can we set the best example?

Bridget Phillipson: Will the Secretary of State explain to parents why after 13 years of Conservative Governments, her Department escalated the risk of a school building collapsing to “critical—very likely”?

Gillian Keegan: Absolutely. We take the condition of schools very seriously, and we will be publishing data. We have collected a lot of data on schools—1.2 billion lines of data—and every time a school is identified as having a risk, it is acted on immediately.

Gagan Mohindra: My constituent, Ms Bhaduri Patel, came to speak to me at my recent surgery in Chorleywood. Her daughter Keya has special educational needs and is currently being kept at home, as she cannot get the support required to have a mainstream education. What is the Minister doing to work with councils such as Hertfordshire County Council, to ensure that pupils such as Keya can access the support they need?

Claire Coutinho: I am so sorry to hear about the position of Keya. There are things we are doing, including  increasing access to specialist school spaces and improving the offer in schools, and I will be setting out more detail within the next week.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Carol Monaghan: It is concerning to hear that the Home Secretary is considering changing visa rules significantly to reduce the period that international students can remain in the UK post-graduation. When the post-study work visa was previously withdrawn, huge damage was done to the higher education sector. Will the Minister assure the House that he will oppose such short-sighted and reactionary policies from the Home Secretary?

Robert Halfon: Immigration matters are for the Home Office, but I am proud that we have a target of 600,000 international students every year. We have exceeded that target, and they have ensured that the economic worth to our country is £25 billion.

Mark Fletcher: Some 23% of school leavers from the Bolsover School go on to study at a sixth form, which is 16% below the national average. Does the Secretary of State agree that our free school bid for the heart of Bolsover—an extension to the Bolsover School—will help to increase those numbers, and increase skills levels locally?

Gillian Keegan: Obviously I cannot comment on bids, but I thank my hon. Friend for meeting me to discuss his ongoing campaign to open a new sixth form in Bolsover. I share his passion for wanting every young person to have a wide range of opportunities to fulfil their potential, whether that is through T-levels, apprenticeships or higher technical qualifications. The next generation must have the skills to thrive.

Luke Pollard: With rising utility and staffing costs, brilliant nurseries such as Tops Day Nurseries in Plymouth are running at a loss and running out of time. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can keep those brilliant businesses afloat, especially to support our most deprived and challenging communities?

Gillian Keegan: Let me take the opportunity to thank all those working in this sector. I know they do incredible work, and it is difficult with the spike in inflation and the rising cost of energy. We always monitor the situation and sufficiency of places. We have spent £3.5 billion in each of the past three years, and we have provided support with energy bills. We are focused on halving inflation, but we recognise the challenges and will always do more. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

Sara Britcliffe: I recently met primary and secondary school headteachers. The consensus among them was that there were still significant concerns regarding budgets, and how they fund pay awards and energy costs. The autumn statement provided billions of extra support and the energy bills discount scheme. Has the Secretary of State made an assessment of how that will help their budgets going forward and whether it will relieve financial pressures?

Nick Gibb: The new energy bills discount scheme will mean that any schools facing energy costs above the price threshold will receive a discount on their bills until 31 March 2024. In addition, the extra funding announced at the autumn statement, £2 billion, will help schools manage higher costs, including higher energy bills. The core schools budget will total £58.8 billion by 2024-25, the highest ever level in real terms per pupil.

Olivia Blake: Last month Carla, a parent in my constituency, suffered a serious head injury after a large piece of cladding flew off the school building, striking her on the head. Thankfully, Carla’s injuries are not life-threatening, but we need to ensure no other parent, staff member or child is put at risk in that way. According to leaked Government reports, school buildings in England are in such bad disrepair that they are a “risk to life”. Instead of waiting for the inevitable to happen, will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue?

Nick Gibb: I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the issue. The ratings she refers to reflect increased numbers of structural issues identified through our continued monitoring and surveying of the schools estate, and the age of that estate. We can and do improve the life expectancy of school buildings by careful maintenance and upgrades over time. That is why we have a 10-year rebuilding programme, allocate significant capital funding each year, and provide extensive guidance on effective estate management. Whenever the Department is made aware of a dangerous building, immediate action is taken.

Henry Smith: I welcome Crawley schools’ funding being increased to a record £100 million for the coming financial year. Can my right hon. Friend say a little bit more about specific support for dyslexic pupils? I declare an interest as a vice-president of the British Dyslexia Association.

Claire Coutinho: My hon. Friend is passionate about securing an excellent education for all his residents. The funding will help many children in mainstream education, but with dyslexia early identification and teacher training is key. I will be setting out more details in the response to the special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision Green Paper.

Clive Lewis: Is the Secretary of State and her Department aware of the severe financial crisis engulfing the University of East Anglia, one so severe that the vice-chancellor has today resigned? This will have a dramatic impact on the regional economy. We could be looking at up to £45 million-worth of projected debt and 30% job losses. As such, will the Secretary of State or the Minister agree to meet me and a delegation from the University of East Anglia to discuss this most critical issue as soon as possible?

Robert Halfon: Yes, I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman sooner rather than later.

Peter Gibson: May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the fantastic Reading Lobster scheme at Skerne Park Academy, encouraging  wider reading that is broadening horizons and achieving better outcomes? What steps are the Secretary of State and her Department taking to encourage wider reading in our primary schools?

Nick Gibb: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his commitment to reading and congratulate Skerne Park Academy on its Reading Lobster scheme, which I am keen to learn more about. Anything that promotes a love and habit of reading for pleasure can only be a good thing—and, as I say, the world’s your lobster.

Mike Amesbury: According to the Department’s own figures, in 2022, 5,400 children’s social workers left the profession. That is 9% up on the previous year. What are Ministers doing to address this crisis in retention and recruitment in children’s social work?

Claire Coutinho: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that recruitment and retention is key. We set out plans in our reforms a couple of weeks ago, including looking at what we are doing on agency workers, An additional £3.2 billion was set out in the autumn statement to go into adult and children’s social care.

Andrew Selous: I was pleased when a new construction and engineering skills centre was built on Chartmoor Road in Leighton Buzzard, but it has failed to deliver. We need 1 million engineers and a quarter of a million construction workers. Will the Department ensure it keeps an eye on such projects so that they deliver for the people who need them?

Robert Halfon: We have had a huge increase—15.7%—in construction apprenticeship starts over the past year. On the college my hon. Friend refers to, we are working closely with Bedford College Group and Central Bedfordshire College to ensure that employers in Bedfordshire continue to benefit from the wide range of skills offers available.

Janet Daby: Earlier this month, a serious racially aggravated assault took place outside a school in Surrey. Last week, I was informed of a further assault that took place at a school in Kent. Could the Secretary of State say what additional safeguards will be put in place to protect children, and how the senior leadership in schools will be held to account if they fail to protect students from racial discrimination?

Gillian Keegan: The recent violent incident in the vicinity of Thomas Knyvett and the incident in Medway were absolutely abhorrent. Children’s safety and wellbeing is the Department’s highest priority, and schools and colleges have a duty to safeguard. Since the incident, the Department has been in regular contact with the academy trust and local authorities. A police investigation is ongoing in one of those cases, and the academy trust is working with the relevant authorities to undertake a thorough review into what happened.

Michael Ellis: My staff member Callum Dineen has been campaigning to improve mental health policies at universities following the tragic   suicide of his close friend Theo Brennan-Hulme. I thank the Universities Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), for meeting Callum on this sensitive matter. Callum has been particularly focused on information sharing in a mental health crisis, which is a policy that Universities UK has recently endorsed and one that we feel would have helped Theo. Can the Minister inform the House of the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that those policies are being adopted in universities?

Robert Halfon: I had a very moving meeting with Callum. The story of the loss of his friend is absolutely tragic. There are serious mental health problems among some students across higher education and universities, and there have been some tragic episodes. We are investing £15 million to support students’ mental health and are strongly supporting the students’ mental health charter. I have asked Edward Peck, the vice-chancellor of Nottingham Trent, to work on these issues.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I say again to Ministers that Question Time should be short and punchy; it is not an opportunity for Ministers to roll on and read out pages of articles. Question Time is for Members to ask questions, so please help me to help them do so.

Valerie Vaz: A headteacher in one of my schools said that there were material errors in the assessment and review of the infrastructure parts of their bids for funds from the school heating programme. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the bids are properly assessed?

Nick Gibb: Officials will give detailed feedback when a school fails to secure a bid through the many different bidding schemes for capital. We spend a huge amount of money on capital funding in our schools—about £13 billion since 2015. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady, the school and officials to go through what went wrong with that bid.

Saqib Bhatti: The Secretary of State will be aware of the tragic incident that occurred in my constituency on the icy lake in Kingshurst, where four children tragically lost their lives. Will she agree to meet me to discuss my campaign to educate children on water safety, to avoid such tragedies in future?

Gillian Keegan: Yes, I am committed to seeing what we can do to improve that, and I will definitely meet my hon. Friend.

Helen Morgan: I recently had a meeting with headteachers from across north Shropshire, who were clear that they had two top issues: recruitment and retention of staff, and the fact that rural schools receive less funding than their urban counterparts. Can the Secretary of State tell me what she is doing to help schools in rural areas with those two big problems?

Nick Gibb: On recruitment, we have increased the bursaries for this year from £130 million to £180 million, to provide £27,000 bursaries for the shortage subjects.   In the national funding formula we have changed a number of elements to give more money to small schools in rural areas through the sparse funding component.

Dean Russell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that families with first-hand experience of special educational needs—such as my constituents the Murphy family, who are in the public gallery—have the opportunity to have a say directly and influence SEN policy and provision, given decisions will affect them on a daily basis?

Claire Coutinho: I welcome the Murphy family—hello! Co-production is incredibly important; that is how we have designed our response to the SEN paper. We will continue to consult at every opportunity.

Clive Efford: We know from leaked Government documents that there is a £13 billion backlog in school repairs. Some cases are deemed to pose a risk to life. Is the Schools Minister aware of any school buildings that are at risk of collapse?

Nick Gibb: We have been conducting some of the biggest surveys of the fabric of school buildings in this country, which is why we are able to identify risks in our schools. Whenever we are informed about a risk to a school, we take immediate action, which can mean that certain buildings in a school are no longer used. We then send in surveyors, specialists and experts, and remedial action is put in place. We take these issues extremely seriously.

Julian Lewis: Is there a danger that the Government’s proposed legislation on freedom of speech in universities could be weakened or undermined by a requirement first to exhaust internal processes of appeal, which can be protracted?

Claire Coutinho: We have sent the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill back to the Lords with the tort unamended. We will continue to look at everything we can do to make sure that the Bill is as strong as possible.

Lindsay Hoyle: And now, a short question from Barry Sheerman. [Laughter.]

Barry Sheerman: Does the Secretary of State agree that early years stimulation is vital? When will she do something about bringing back children’s centres and Sure Start?

Gillian Keegan: I will do even better than that. We are introducing family hubs, which have a lot more utility and will be much more useful to those who need them.

Jonathan Gullis: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Councillor Dave Evans and his team, led by Lisa Lyons, Vonni Gordon and Steven Orchard, for getting Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s children’s services from “inadequate” to “requires improvement”? That is an incredible turnaround, but obviously there is still a way to go.

Gillian Keegan: I am very happy to congratulate Stoke-on-Trent City Council and the many other councils that have made that turnaround possible. That is very important, as we build on the work of Stable Homes, Built on Love.

Lindsay Hoyle: Finally, I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Education.

Robin Walker: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the steps that she is taking to progress talks with the National Education Union to ensure that there is no more disruptive and damaging strike action?

Gillian Keegan: I am quite surprised that this question did not come up earlier. On Tuesday of last week, the Government made a serious offer to the leaders of the National Education Union and the Royal College of Nursing to pause this week’s strikes, get around the table and talk about pay. This is an offer for talks about all areas in dispute, and we could not have been clearer. It is a serious offer; it was accepted by the Royal College of Nursing, and I urge the education unions to do the same. They have yet to formally respond, although statements have been circulating on Twitter and TV indicating that they are not prepared to pause their plans.

Points of Order

Andy McDonald: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 6 February, the Middlesbrough Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2023 was laid before the House. Last Friday, Middlesbrough Council voted not to consent to the creation of the development corporation. Many people understood that to mean that the establishment of the corporation would not happen, but this very day, as a result of the negative procedure, the corporation will still come into being—notwithstanding the opposition of the duly elected council, which will lose its publicly assembled and funded assets and lose its planning powers in favour of a non-elected, unaccountable board hand-picked by the Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen.
Have you had any notice from the Government as to whether they intend to proceed with the corporation, Mr Speaker? Alternatively, how may I secure a statement from the Secretary of State to clarify the position?

Lindsay Hoyle: The answer is no, I have not, but I am very grateful to the hon. Member for notice of his point of order. As he knows, it is not a matter for the Chair, but I note that he has prayed against the instrument; he may also wish to put in for an urgent question. The outcome may not be favourable, but at least he has got his point on the record.

Clive Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the matter of slavery reparations to the Island of Grenada, and the wider Caribbean? As you may be aware, today the Trevelyan family is launching a £100,000 fund in Grenada, announced by the BBC journalist Laura Trevelyan and her family earlier this month, in response to the family’s discovery that they had benefited from the slave trade and the massive British Government compensation paid to slave owners—but not to the slaves—in the 1830s. As a son of both Britain and Grenada, I believe that the Trevelyan family’s actions are to be applauded, but I cannot find any evidence of a single, solitary statement to the House on this pressing matter, or any record of British Ministers’ having the same conversation directly with nations such as Grenada. What action can I take to ensure that that happens?

Lindsay Hoyle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of what he was going to say. As he knows, it is not a point of order for the Chair, but he has certainly put his views on the record, and I am sure he will not leave it at that but will pursue it through other means which he feels will be satisfactory, such as parliamentary questions. The matter will be pursued with great vigour: that I can myself guarantee.

Bill Presented

Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jonathan Gullis, supported by Priti Patel, Sir Robert Buckland, Mr Simon Clarke, Brandon Lewisand Brendan Clarke-Smith presented a Bill to make provision about the extension of pensions automatic enrolment to jobholders under the age of 22; to make provision about the lower qualifying earnings threshold for automatic enrolment; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March and to be printed (Bill 255).

Lifelong Learning  (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill

Second Reading

Gillian Keegan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Everyone has a different reason for being passionate about education, but most of us can point to that time in our lives which changed our lives: the excitement when maths began to make sense, the thrill when we found a subject that we really loved and were good at, or the pride that came when a life-changing teacher showed that he or she believed in us. I have spoken in this place before about my first moment of that kind, when my teacher, Mr Ashcroft, stayed late after school to help me take extra O-levels in engineering and technical drawing, which he continued to do for two years. His belief in me changed my life. Thanks to Mr Ashcroft, I was able to be accepted for an apprenticeship in a car factory, which was the golden ticket to a different life. But I have spoken less here about the second moment, and the third, and the fourth. I was lucky in that my education started there, but did not end there.
I have been lucky enough to benefit from truly lifetime learning throughout my jobs. I was able to go back and study in both my 30s and my 40s. From that, I have learnt a simple truth: offer people a hand up, and they will take it. However, while we excel at educating people in their younger years, too often we do not offer the same support once they are off the beaten track. Education is an opportunity—it is the ultimate levelling-up tool, the closest thing that we have to a silver bullet when it comes to improving lives—and it is always good to have more than one shot, as many things will change throughout our working lives. We have pledged to level up the country so that everyone gets the education that will enable them to seize the opportunities that come their way. I take that pledge extremely seriously, and that is why I am so proud to present this Bill to Parliament today.

Jim Shannon: I applaud the Secretary of State for presenting a Bill which I think everyone in the House will welcome as a positive move. The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—who is sitting beside the Secretary of State—has often promoted young people whom I would describe as white Protestant males who do not achieve educational standards. He has frequently said that it is his purpose to make a difference. Is that also the purpose of the Secretary of State?

Gillian Keegan: Absolutely. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that, as someone who went to a comprehensive school in Knowsley, a deprived white working-class area. Most of my schoolmates did leave school without many qualifications, and this is exactly the kind of opportunity that will be there for them many years later. They will be given that helping hand and, hopefully, take it.

Tom Hunt: I, too, applaud my right hon. Friend’s educational support for people throughout their adult lives, but does she agree that it should also   apply to those who are neurodiverse? People do not stop being neurodiverse when they leave school, which is why this support is needed throughout their adulthood.

Gillian Keegan: Absolutely. It is important that lifelong learning continues to be accessible to many people. Sadly, we have heard of cases where people are not diagnosed during their time in school, and it is even more important that those opportunities are always there for them.
The Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill is one step further in our mission to revolutionise access to higher and further education with the introduction of a lifelong loan entitlement, otherwise known as the LLE. As the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), says, the LLE will ensure that everybody has a flexible travel card to jump on and off their learning journey, as opposed to being confined to a single ticket. It is hard to overestimate the transformative effect that this legislation could have. Through the Government’s wider skills agenda, we have built the engine to help to transform our technical education system. We are doing this by expanding the number and quality of apprenticeships, by growing technical routes into work and by creating innovations such as boot camps. These reforms mean that the engine is ready, but it needs accelerator fuel and that is what the LLE is. It is the way we will deliver on a simple promise: if you back yourself, we will back you.
The Bill will adapt the student finance framework, making different types of study more accessible and more flexible. This is chiefly because it will enable meaningful fee limits to be set on periods of study shorter than a year. It will no longer be the case that the only ticket to further or higher education is through a three-year degree. Money talks, and there is often talk about parity of esteem. This system delivers parity of esteem. What this means in practice is that modules and short courses, as well as traditional degree courses, will be priced according to the amount of learning they contain. This will create a fair, more flexible system and go a long way to encourage more people into post-18 education.

Flick Drummond: We are talking about lifelong learning, but we are now expecting people to work until they are 67, so is there going to be an age limit on this loan?

Gillian Keegan: Subject to the consultation, there will be. I think that there are some age limits at the top end in the student loan scheme today.

Aaron Bell: My right hon. Friend was just talking about a fair price and a new method for calculating a maximum level for tuition fees. Does she agree that some people have been receiving higher education that has not been value for money over the past 20 years or so, and that this reform will make sure that people get what they pay for and get value out of their education?

Gillian Keegan: Yes, there have been occasions when some people may have felt that the value of the course they were on did not match the aspirations or expectations they had on their way into it. Obviously it can help if courses are shorter in length and there are more options to get to the career routes that many people are seeking.
As someone who studied part-time at college and at university I really appreciated the flexibility, but too often the system today tries to fit people into a box rather than adapting to their needs. That is why this legislation and the flexibility it brings will be of special benefit to students who need flexible study options—for example, those from disadvantaged groups or those who have caring responsibilities. Let me give some extremely practical examples. Take Alice, who is ambitious and wants to move into management but has not yet got the skills to do so. By using the lifelong loan entitlement, Alice can fund a module of learning to take that important next step, studying part-time so that she can stay in her job, earning while she is learning.
What about Ed? He has worked for the same company for 20 years and feels as though he is stuck in a rut and going nowhere. Luckily, Ed can use his LLE to enrol on a course that focuses on a growth area of the company he works for. He hops in and out of the training when he can and he is eventually able to break out of his rut and get himself promoted. Finally, Amy uses her LLE to study for a three-year degree to build a career in engineering, but because after 10 years in work, new technologies mean that she is not as skilled as she needs to be, she uses her remaining LLE entitlement to do a module that refreshes her skillset. She is then able to get a better job that makes use of that.

Flick Drummond: What about carers? Will they still be entitled to carer’s allowance while they study?

Gillian Keegan: I am afraid my hon. Friend is a little ahead of me. This is a subject of the consultation, to which we will respond before Report.
Our education system should have this kind of flexibility at its heart, and through the LLE it will. The fee limits for all courses are currently set per academic year of a full course. Without action, the fees for modules or short courses could be set too high, which would put anyone who wants to study flexibly at a disadvantage, wasting our golden opportunity. It is the polar opposite of what the LLE should be trying to encourage.
This Bill addresses the lack of fairness in how learners choose to study, by introducing a new method for calculating fee limits. This Bill will do three key things. First, it will enable tuition fee limits to be based on credits, which are already a popular measure of learner time and will enable fee limits for all types of courses to be set consistently and appropriately.
Secondly, this Bill will introduce the concept of a course year, rather than an academic year. This will allow charges for short courses and modules to be set with greater accuracy. Finally, this Bill will allow the Secretary of State to set a cap on the total number of credits that can be charged for each type of course. This will prevent modules from being premium-priced.
Ultimately, this Bill will help to ensure that everyone, no matter their background or career stage, will have access to life-changing skills and training. The LLE will transform access to post-18 education and skills, and it will provide learners with a loan entitlement equivalent to four years of post-18 education, which is £37,000 in today’s fees. Learners will be able to use the LLE over their working lives. It will be available for both modules and full courses in colleges, universities and institutes of technology.

Aaron Bell: I welcome the commitment to four years because, to follow up on my earlier intervention, some people may feel that their three-year course did not set them up for the world of work as well as they would have liked. Does this mean such people will be entitled to one further year, with a loan, to reskill themselves to get the job they want?

Gillian Keegan: Yes, absolutely. That is why we sometimes see people take a level 4 or 5 apprenticeship course after completing their degree to get the skills that are useful in the workplace. Both full-time and modular options will be available.
The LLE will help people to get the skills they need for the jobs of the future, to build the energy resources, to lay the broadband fibre, to deliver the high-quality social care and to train the teachers and nurses we need. Some of us were fortunate enough to have the right opportunities at the right time, but others were not so lucky. That is what I want to change, because everyone should get that opportunity, regardless of where they are from, the decisions they have taken or even the courses they have chosen in the past.
We believe that the LLE will create a more streamlined lifelong funding system that benefits everyone—learners, employers and the economy. It is estimated that at least 80% of the workforce of 2030 are already in work today. They will need the opportunity to upskill and reskill over their career to progress and adapt to changing skills, needs and employment patterns. The LLE presents everyone with life-changing opportunities to get the skills training they need to retrain, upskill and progress.
I assure my hon. and right hon. Friends that we have consulted widely on how the LLE will work, who is eligible and how to support them. We are considering the contributions to this consultation, and we intend to publish a full response ahead of Report on the wider policy and design of the LLE. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) has a great interest in this, I am sure.
As we move forward to delivery from 2025, we will continue to talk to representatives from across the education sector, as well as key delivery bodies, such as the Student Loans Company, to create a flexible and streamlined system that responds to the needs of the economy.
Too many businesses are struggling to find people with the right skills for their job vacancies, while school leavers and learners are often baffled by a skills system that is complex and bureaucratic. That means that companies cannot find the workers they need, people cannot progress and the country is stuck in a productivity quagmire. We have people who want to work and companies that want to hire them, but we need the LLE to ensure that the workers of today have the skills for tomorrow. We need learners to be able to upskill and retrain flexibly throughout their working lives as their circumstances and needs change. By offering funding for shorter periods of study, the LLE will help those who may have been put off studying because they thought the fees were too high or the living costs would be too expensive.
This legislation supports the Government’s pledge to introduce the LLE from 2025, building on the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022. It also furthers Sir Philip Augar’s independent review of post-18 education in 2019, which included the recommendation that the Government  introduce a lifelong learning allowance. Through the LLE, we aim to introduce a more streamlined, efficient and flexible learning system that is fit for the future and brings further and higher education providers closer together. The LLE will transform access to post-18 education, presenting opportunities to retrain, progress and excel throughout an individual’s working life.
This Bill may seem small and technical, but its impact will be far-reaching. We need more coders, doctors, nurses, teachers, technicians and builders—more of most things—and I am certain the British people will answer the call, if only we give them the tools and training to do so. Establishing the LLE may be one small piece of legislation, but it is one great step for life chances and social justice. I am a Conservative because I believe in equality of opportunity—because I believe that what matters is where someone is going, not where they have come from. For that reason, I commend this Bill to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Matt Western: It is a pleasure to follow the Secretary of State. I share a lot of her view on the importance of lifelong learning and how it transform lives, and the passion with which she spoke about that. The policy areas that unite us in this House are few and far between, but as she demonstrated in her remarks, the principle of lifelong learning elicits widespread support across the House. That is because we all recognise the transformational potential of education and the fact that it should not be capped simply by virtue of a person’s age or life stage. My view, and that of the Opposition, is very much that education is an investment not just in the individual, but in human capital and society, and, de facto, in our economy. We all probably know a Mr Ashcroft, as the Secretary of State was describing; we have all been touched by someone who felt that they should perhaps be widening their skillset through their lives or careers.
The world is clearly changing fast. With the fourth industrial revolution, net zero and changing demographics on the horizon, the need for a flexible multi-skilled workforce is more important than ever before. The CBI estimates that nine in 10 workers will have to retain and reskill by 2030 as result of the digital changes seen in the world of work. Likewise, the Climate Change Committee estimates that 300,000 additional jobs will be created if we are to meet our decarbonisation targets by 2030. Many of those jobs will require skills not yet being taught—or skills that perhaps should have been taught in recent years—if we are to catch up on achieving our objectives .
For too long now, the drive for more widespread adult education—lifelong learning and reskilling—has been, at best, lacklustre. The Government have sat on the sidelines and overseen a decade of decline in skills. On adult learning, for example, a survey by the Learning and Work Institute revealed that only one in three adults self-reports any participation in learning—that is the lowest in 22 years. Between 2009 and 2019, Government spending on adult education fell by 47% and, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, adult education and adult apprenticeships will still be 25% lower in 2024-25 compared with 2010-11.
We often talk about the lost decade of wage growth, and that is a fact, but it is pretty hard not to see it as a lost decade of skills growth as well. Indeed, the Learning and Work Institute quantifies that loss as up to 4 million learners, which is a pretty damning indictment of the Government’s skills agenda for these past 13 years. Indeed, part of the problem in recent years has been the lack of priority and focus in the Department, as deckchairs have been shuffled, reshuffled and shuffled again. The figures are well known. We have had five Education Secretaries in the past year, a succession of Ministers responsible for higher education and a seemingly constant shifting set of responsibilities between Ministers. There has been a fatal lack of consistency at the heart of the Department. It must be particularly challenging for the Secretary of State to be witnessing that at first hand. That may well explain why there is a widespread lack of awareness among employers of the Government’s skills reform programme. Four in five employers said that they were unaware of the Government’s plan to introduce lifelong learning entitlement.
Having listened to the Secretary of State’s opening speech, however, I note her determination finally to kickstart the lifelong learning agenda, and I commend her for the work that she is doing. I commend, too, the work of the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, both from the Back Benches and as Chair of the Education Committee. It was my former colleague, Gordon Marsden who, as MP for Blackpool South, really started this agenda, recognising the need for lifelong learning in the form of Labour’s Lifelong Learning Commission report in November 2019. Labour is fully committed to supporting the Government in delivering lifelong learning, continuing the important work that Gordon Marsden put together.
None the less, there remain some significant questions over the Government’s stated policy. In a slightly unusual way, what we have before us is merely a frame with no content—an exoskeleton without a body, as it were. The Government launched a consultation 12 months ago on how the lifelong learning policy should be framed, which included who should be eligible; whether maintenance should be provided; what courses should be covered; what courses should be exempt; what changes to the regulatory framework are required; what incentives, support and guidance are needed to encourage prospective students; how students can stack up their credits or modules; and how course quality assurance is monitored. However, despite that, the Government have failed to publish their consultation response ahead of introducing this legislation, denying Parliament the full picture when scrutinising the Bill—and that consultation closed 10 months ago, in May last year.
The Cabinet Office regulation rules, published in 2018, state:
“Government responses to consultations should be published in a timely fashion.”
Ideally, that is within 12 weeks—I guess that is three months—of the consultation. If not, they should
“provide an explanation why this is not possible.”
I ask the Minister this: why has the response to the lifelong learning consultation not yet been published? When does he expect to publish it, and what explanation can he give for the delay?
This is important, because this skeletal Bill’s skeletal impact assessment states:
“A full and detailed quantitative assessment of impacts on learners, providers, employers, the Exchequer and the wider economy and society is…not possible because of two key sources of uncertainty”—
namely, broader lifelong learning entitlement policy and behavioural uncertainty. The impact assessment goes on to say:
“As some aspects of the broader LLE policy are still in development, it is not yet possible to accurately estimate these familiarisation costs.”
As a cherry on top, we are promised that an enactment impact assessment will be published after the Bill receives Royal Assent. One would have thought that the two sources of uncertainty—broader LLE policy and behavioural uncertainty—would have been addressed by the consultative process and the learnings from the pilot programme. But no, for some reason those are being kept from this House. That may have something to do with the fact that only 33 applications for student finance were made for the Office for Students short course trial, which is widely considered to be a failure.
Call me old-fashioned—I have only been in this place for six years—but I prefer to debate the policy underpinning parliamentary Bills and their potential impact while we still have a chance to get it right. It is incumbent on all of us to try to deliver the best legislation. That is in all our interests, particularly given the unanimous support for the principle behind this Bill. Instead, we, the sector and prospective students are waiting on tenterhooks for the final publication of the consultation response before we can make any well-informed assessment of the Bill and how it will interact with the broader lifelong learning policy offer.
In anticipation of the Minister delivering the much-awaited consultation response in the coming days, I will move on to our concerns about the principles of the Bill as drafted and about lifelong learning policy. Given the importance of getting the lifelong learning policy right for boosting the UK’s economic growth, productivity and workforce potential, there remain significant questions related to the deliverability of this reform. The Minister is committed to delivering lifelong learning by the 2025 academic year. However, as he well knows, it takes a considerable amount of time to make changes to the student finance system, the admissions system and the design of new courses. As a fellow pragmatist, does he genuinely believe that it will be delivered by the start of the 2025 academic year, or will it be delivered in a limited form?
Delivering that could prove groundbreaking in changing the post-16 education landscape, and Labour would continue to tailor it if in government. To borrow a sporting metaphor, the pitch needs to be rolled. That includes the need for more clarity on who will be eligible. Universities UK, the representative group of 140 universities, has called for broad and consistent eligibility criteria to ensure that as many future learners as possible can upskill and retrain in the future. Given this Government’s previous form on proposals to limit access to higher education, whether directly or indirectly, what plans does the Minister have to extend this policy offer to as many people as possible, including those who are most hard to reach? Ultimately, as I have said, education is an investment in people. Therefore, the lifelong learning entitlement should  be viewed through the lens of educational empowerment, rather than restrictively controlled and micromanaged. Many of us have concerns about how this is going to be managed and delivered, particularly through the OFS.
Given the scale of the challenge and the reforms to the student finance system, it is also important that the Student Loans Company is adequately prepared to deal with this new funding model. I, and indeed the sector, have noted that there is little to no information on the financial cost for the Government in the event that the Student Loans Company requires a redesign in any document attached to the Bill. That could be significant, surely. Given that the SLC funnels £10 billion-worth of public money into supporting students undertaking higher education courses, what assurances can the Minister give the House that adequate preparation has been carried out to ensure that the SLC is prepared for the coming change?
The Bill gives a surprising amount of power to the Secretary of State to decide what fee method applies, the type of courses and activities it applies to, and the maximum amount of funding available for each module or course. Understandably, that has raised eyebrows. With so much power in the hands of the Secretary of State, depriving Parliament of the ability to hold the Government to account adequately, there are few brakes to prevent them from unilaterally deciding to redefine the nature of a credit or a module, and to make compliance with that change contingent on future funding. I am sure that the sector would therefore warmly welcome greater clarity in the Bill on key concepts such as credits and modules. That would go a long way to assuage such concerns, whether or not they are well founded.
It is also widely recognised among providers that running modular provision is more expensive, not least because of the need to provide additional wraparound support, including onboarding, mental health support and academic writing support. Clearly, it is important that a minimum fee level is set to prevent students from being unfairly charged more for modular study than for a traditional academic year of study. However, in the light of the financial pressures on institutions, what plans does the Minister have, if any, to address the cost burden for providers delivering those courses? Failure to understand how that will work on the ground runs the risk of providers shying away from running such courses because of their prohibitive expense. The Government’s own impact assessment stresses as much, stating:
“Some providers could receive less tuition fee income per student if some types of learners that are currently studying longer courses instead choose to study in a modular fashion”.
It would be deeply concerning if the policy behind the Bill further eroded the financial sustainability of the sector, and damaging to the UK’s economic outlook if providers ended up opting out of modular study. It is therefore vital that sustainable and adequate funding be available to providers, and that fees be proportionate to a full qualification with support to deliver wraparound support and high-cost modules. That is also why consultation and dialogue with the sector are so important during the setting of fee limits. In that vein, what plans does the Minister have to ensure that, when setting those limits, the Secretary of State has properly consulted those in the sector charged with delivering this model of teaching?
Finally, let me touch on how the policy underpinning the Bill will engage with the current regulatory landscape. Sector bodies and universities are clear about the need to minimise additional burden. As a result, it is important that the Bill builds on existing regulatory and quality-assurance mechanisms. That is important for employer and student confidence in the system. It is somewhat ironic therefore that the Government are currently validating the de-designation of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education from the Office for Students. That could leave a quality assurance black hole when we most need an experienced quality assurance body. I would be grateful if the Minister set out what plans he has to ensure that regulatory burden is kept to a minimum during the implementation of LLE, and how modular-based courses will be assessed for quality harmoniously across the sector.
Although the Bill is the flimsiest piece of legislation, we will not oppose it. We will wait for the Government’s response to the consultation. I urge the Government to publish the consultation document way before Committee stage, so that we have access to it and can properly scrutinise the legislation in the context of the consultation and the Government’s response. On that basis, we will not oppose the legislation.

Robin Walker: I very much welcome the Second Reading of this important legislation and the broad principle of extending the Government’s support for further and higher education to more people through a lifelong learning entitlement. It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful and constructive contribution from the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), who raised some genuinely valid questions. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education for the briefing he provided ahead of the debate to members of the Education Committee, which I chair.
The Bill is an important step in the journey to create what my right hon. Friend has often described as the ladder of opportunity, and it should benefit people across our country and at every stage in life. Making level 4, 5 and 6 qualifications more widely available, and encouraging HE institutions to offer greater flexibility to those pursuing them, are both worthwhile aims. This legislation, if done right, should stimulate greater competition and innovation in the market for lifelong learning. It has been welcomed by the Open University, which has been a pioneer in this space, and it has long-term potential to transform the skills landscape for learning through life.
I generally make it a rule not to bang on too much in this House about my predecessor but two as Member for Worcester—my late father—but I will make an exception in this debate. My late father, who never had the opportunity to pursue his studies beyond what we would now describe as level 2, set out an ambition in his Macmillan lecture about 40 years ago for people to be able to pursue education through their lifetimes. He envisaged a society in which people would be freed by the technological revolution then getting under way to pursue opportunities for education and advancement at any stage in their career. He summarised that opportunity  under the heading “Athens without the slaves”—a piece of hyperbole that was much ridiculed at the time and that is commemorated in a lovely Times cartoon we have in the downstairs loo at my mother’s house—which I think recognises the intrinsic value of pursuing education.
My father’s was a generation in which higher education was a luxury withheld from the vast majority of the population.

David Johnston: I am very much enjoying hearing about my hon. Friend’s father’s views, and I look forward to reading his lecture. Does my hon. Friend agree that many people just do not appreciate education when they go through it the first time round, in the years to 16 or 18? They might have bad teachers, or they might have other things going on in their lives, and they cannot see the relevance of what they are doing in the classroom. Many people would like another opportunity at education later in life, which is why this Bill is so important.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are those who perhaps did not relish being in the classroom at the time. There are also those who go through their whole lives regretting not having had the opportunity to pursue further studies and feeling that they have somehow missed out on something. This Bill should provide a solution for both groups.
As I was saying, in my father’s generation, higher education was available to the few; it was a luxury withheld from the vast majority of the population. However, his generation also recognised that there should be no limits to where aspiration and hard work could take an individual. In his case, they took the lad who left school at 16 and who took his insurance exams while doing his national service to success in finance, politics, the Cabinet and eventually the House of Lords. However, he always recognised that, in missing out on the higher studies and university education that so many of his peers had enjoyed, he and many of his generation lost out on something of real value. He wanted to create the opportunity for people to study later in life, and to keep open the offer of vocational and academic study to adults throughout their lives.

Aaron Bell: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston), I am very interested in my hon. Friend’s father’s reflections in his Macmillan lecture. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we stand on the cusp of another scientific and technological revolution, with artificial intelligence, green jobs and so on, the need for lifelong learning is more urgent than ever?

Robin Walker: I do, and I think that that point has been well made from both sides of the House. With the fourth industrial revolution, there are opportunities for people to reskill—something that the Bill can well support.
The Bill has the potential to be an important step in recognising the vision my late father set out, ensuring that people like him in future generations have educational opportunities that were simply not available in previous generations. Allowing universities to spread the cost of a degree over more units and to have more flexible start dates should allow more people to pursue high-level studies flexibly and on a part-time basis. That, in turn, will help to meet the clearly expressed requirement from employers for more qualified people at level 4 and above.
Making the low-interest loans that are currently available to undergraduates accessible to more people in later life, and for a greater range of courses, should ensure that many more people have the opportunity to pursue studies at a stage in their career that might suit them. That would help people wanting to skill up in order to return to work, and also those for whom the only option for higher study is part time alongside continuing to work. Allowing units of progress on qualifications to be retained and transferred should allow more people to achieve higher qualifications over time than has been the case, and enable learners for the first time to lock in progress with their studies, in a way that was not possible under an all-or-nothing approach. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s analogy of a travelcard, rather than a one-way ticket, is a very good one in that regard.
I recognise the broader range of skills challenges that we face—I perhaps expected to hear more from the Opposition on that topic. My Committee will shortly be publishing our report on post-16 qualifications, and I am also looking forward to supporting the work of the all-party parliamentary group for students on the cost of living for students, which is undoubtedly a matter of significant concern. However, I am strongly in support of what this legislation sets out to do, and of the drivers behind it. I do have a few queries, though, which I hope the Minister can answer fully in his closing remarks.
First, my Committee has recently heard from a range of organisations across the university sector with concerns about the burden of regulation they face from the OfS. I hope the Minister can reassure us that the requirements of the Bill will not be overly onerous and that, rather than increasing the burden of regulation, it will set out to create new freedoms for an independent sector to innovate and compete. Secondly, given that the scope of the legislation covers qualifications at levels 4, 5 and 6, what roles do Ministers envisage for the FE sector, and for partnerships between higher education and FE, as providers for lifelong learning under the new arrangements?
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, given that the Government have consulted on the details of their proposals but have not yet responded to their own consultation, when can we expect to see the Government’s full response? I join the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington in urging Ministers to bring that response forward before Committee stage, if at all possible. It would be very helpful for the House’s scrutiny of the Bill if it were able to see the details of that response and how the Bill will operate, rather than the framework itself.
However, the legislation is very welcome in its intent, and I look forward to the Minister’s responses to my questions. As Chair of the cross-party Education Select Committee, I welcome the Government’s intention to support lifelong learning by extending the benefits of student finance to more people. I look forward to supporting the Bill’s Second Reading.

Munira Wilson: It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Education Select Committee, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker).
Mr Deputy Speaker,
“adult education must not be regarded as a luxury for a few exceptional persons here and there, nor as a thing which concerns only a short span of early manhood, but that adult education is a permanent national necessity, an inseparable aspect of citizenship, and therefore should be both universal and lifelong”.
That is not a quote from one of the many briefings that was sent to me ahead of the debate. It comes from Arthur Smith, who was the master of Balliol College, Oxford, in his foreword to a report commissioned by David Lloyd George’s Government in 1919. This Bill is trying to fulfil an ambition outlined more than a century ago by a Liberal Prime Minister—one that, sadly, successive Governments of all colours have failed to deliver.
As we have already heard, there is consensus on all sides of the House about the need for a revolution in adult education. That cannot be understated, given the pace of economic and societal change before us. Research from the Confederation of British Industry predicts that, as a result of changes in the world of work driven by digitalisation and the transition to a green economy, 25 million workers will need to upskill by 2030, and 5 million will need to retrain completely. The 2022 business barometer, which was put together by the Open University with the British Chambers of Commerce, found that 78% of UK organisations suffered a decline in output, profitability and growth as a consequence of the lack of available skills.
Liberal Democrats see investment in education and skills not only as an investment in our country’s future, but much more than that. It is about helping people to maximise their potential, nurture their creativity and develop their interests and talents, so I share the Secretary of State’s ambition that, no matter a person’s background or what path they have trodden, we all deserve equality of opportunity. That is the reason I am a Liberal. The Secretary of State says that it is the reason she is a Conservative. Maybe we can hammer it out over a drink sometime, and I might persuade her to cross the Floor, because as we have seen, it was a Liberal Prime Minister who originally set out that ambition.
However, I fear that the Government’s investment in lifelong learning over recent years does not meet the scale of the ambition that the Secretary of State has outlined. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, total adult skills spending in 2024-2025 will still be 22% below 2009-10 levels. The number of students taking non-degree undergraduate courses at higher education providers fell from 330,000 in 2007-08 to 110,000 in 2021-22, most of whom were part-time learners. We are promised that the lifelong learning entitlement will change that, and that it will be flexible, unified and high-quality, with parity between technical and academic routes. We are promised that this Bill will underpin the LLE scheme by providing a credit-based method for calculating the fee limit for whole courses and individual modules. While I commend the Minister and the Secretary of State for their commitment to the cause, I agree with many of the comments made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), that it is plain to see that this Bill is not the century-in-the-making panacea we have all been waiting for.
Many questions remain unanswered in what the shadow Minister described as a skeletal Bill. First, we are debating the Bill in reverse. Parliament is meant to debate and approve the policy framework and then let the regulations deal with the technical details. This Bill does the opposite—it sets out the mechanism through which an LLE will be delivered without setting out any of the major policy decisions about how it will work. As we have already heard, the LLE consultation was published more than a  year ago, but we are yet to see the Government response. The hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), who is no longer in her place, asked the Secretary of State how old someone would have to be to access the loan entitlement. How will maintenance support work? There are no details in the consultation. Will the repayment terms for these loans be the same as for 18-year-olds going to university when many of these learners will have only 20, 15 or 10 years left in their working lives? Will the equivalent and lower qualifications rule be abolished?
Those are basic questions about the nature and structure of the LLE that the Government do not seem to be any closer to answering as yet, but they will make huge differences to the effectiveness of the programme. The lack of any detail on how to support students with living costs, particularly during a cost of living crisis, seems to me a significant oversight, which is made even more unforgivable by the fact that the Department is increasing undergraduate maintenance loans by just 2.8% next year, when inflation is running at more than triple that rate.
I question whether the Government have correctly identified the major problem they are attempting to address through this Bill, because I am not sure they have made the case that the LLE is something that aspiring learners actually want. The Department for Education sought to prove its concept by making student finance available for 104 courses, yet according to Wonkhe, just 26 of those courses are advertising a future start date and just 33 students have applied for student finance as part of that trial. That was backed up by a survey last year by Public First, which found that telling people about the LLE made no statistically significant difference to whether people would retrain. I do not believe that reveals a lack of demand for lifelong learning, but it does show a considerable lack of interest from the public in this mechanism for financing it.
The most commonly cited reason for not showing an interest in the scheme is not wanting to take on debt. Seeing as talking about our predecessors is in vogue, I will say that was the conclusion my predecessor, the former Member of Parliament for Twickenham, Sir Vince Cable, came to in 2019 when he commissioned an expert panel of university, college and adult education leaders to explore alternatives for financing lifelong learning. They found that most mature students have work, a mortgage or family responsibilities, and so are unlikely to be attracted to a scheme requiring them in effect to pay a higher rate of tax for the rest of their working life to participate in further study.
The commission recommended giving every adult a personal education and skills account—what the Liberal Democrats have nicknamed a skills wallet. The skills wallet is not about just bolting modular learning on to the existing higher education fees system, as this Bill proposes, but would offer central Government grants throughout life to incentivise learning at all levels and would leverage private and public investment from employers, local government and learners themselves.
The Government’s consultation says that a learner’s account will show their learning balance “like a bank account”, so why not operate it like a bank account with tax breaks to incentivise individuals to save for retraining? Many short courses are being paid for by  employers, so why not make employers’ contributions as commonplace as a workplace pension? Local, regional and central Government could also incentivise retraining during a downturn or following the collapse of a large local employer by topping up the accounts of affected workers.
Tom Bewick, the chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies said:
“The LLE Bill has the potential to be the most radical entitlement to adult education, skills…and retraining…ever introduced.”
But he goes on to say:
“Grants and maintenance support will also be required.”
I fear that the ambition of Education Ministers for the Bill and its scope have been shackled by the Treasury.

David Johnston: The hon. Lady is making an interesting case, but does she accept that some people do not want further or higher education and will not benefit from it? People talk about the archetypal bus driver who has not done such courses—of course, sometimes they will have—and ask why he should have to pay for other people to do them. I can see that the measure could be important for low-income families, but does she accept the principle that people who want to do the course should have to contribute themselves?

Munira Wilson: I see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but equally, we are ambitious about making sure that the whole population, or many parts of it, are reskilling and are ready for the jobs of the future, and for people from low-income backgrounds, loans are a real barrier to putting themselves forward for additional courses. The skills wallet, as in our 2019 proposal, would be a grant given at various points of someone’s lifetime between the age of 25 and 55, with top-ups from local or national Government or employers and some tax breaks to go with it. That is an innovative and pluralistic way of funding that ambition, particularly given the challenges that we face as a country to fulfil the skills that we need for us to thrive and grow, which seems to be a cross-party ambition.
I fear that the narrow scope of the Bill will prevent amendments that probe the big policy choices that await the Government before LLEs are rolled out in 2025, but I hope that Ministers will answer the following questions as the Bill progresses. Will the Secretary of State consider putting the notional hourly value of a credit in the Bill so that modules cannot be devalued by a future Government looking to save money? Universities UK and other stakeholders have raised concerns that clause 2 may allow the Secretary of State to set differential fees based on subject of the course. Ministers should bring forward amendments in Committee to ensure that that is not possible and protect universities’ institutional autonomy.
How will Ministers ensure that learners have access to high-quality careers advice before they get their loan entitlement? David Cameron promised Islamic-compliant student finance in 2013. It is unacceptable that, 10 years later, it has still not been introduced. Will the LLE also be blocked off to Muslim students? Will the equivalent or lower qualification rule be abolished to give learners more flexibility in what they study? Will the Government support the Liberal Democrats’ plan to restore maintenance grants so that university graduates from low-income backgrounds are not punished by having to pay back more of their loans for longer?
This is a pivotal opportunity to shape lifelong learning in this country, and it is desperately important given the digital and green revolutions that are already under way. If we want to ensure that we as a country are at the forefront of capitalising on these opportunities, we need to equip people with the right skills, so these plans need further thought and further detail. We will rue the day if, in another 100 years, Arthur Smith’s ambitions have still not been fulfilled.

David Evennett: It is a great pleasure to be able to participate in this Second Reading debate. I should begin by congratulating the Secretary of State on her excellent speech, and on her passion for opportunity and excellence. I would also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on his speech, including his memories of his father. As someone who knew his father very well, and who went to some of his lunches when we had discussions about these sort of things, it brought back happy memories. [Interruption.] Ah, the Secretary of State is still here. I just wanted to say congratulations to her on bringing forward this Bill. I know she is passionate about opportunity, excellence and the fact that everyone should have a chance to develop themselves.
Many of us on these Benches have, over many years, been persistent in campaigning for lifelong learning and greater educational opportunities, irrespective of people’s backgrounds or situation. We have also praised our further education sector—the colleges—and I know the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, who is his place, has been a champion for the colleges. I believe that inspirational teachers, parents, role models, friends and school facilities are very important in encouraging young people, teenagers and people in their early 20s at college or university to go on and make something of themselves, but that is not enough. They need additional opportunities later on in life.
As someone who was a schoolteacher and subsequently, and more importantly in respect of this Bill, a college lecturer, I know from personal experience, as well as from constituency involvement, of the many students who, for many and various reasons, have not had the opportunity to continue in training, education or college courses. Their ambitions and their careers were stymied because they did not have that opportunity. When I was out of Parliament between 1997 and 2005, I was privileged to meet and to teach students at Bexley College, which at the time was led by the inspirational principal Dr Jim Healey. I taught women returners, the unemployed, those who wanted qualifications, those who needed qualifications to advance in their jobs and those who wanted to change careers. In particular, I was dealing with Institute of Management and Institute of Personnel Management courses. They were good opportunities, but they were limited in scope—they did not go far enough—and now we are addressing that situation.
I would like to praise the Open University. I think we should do that, because it has done fantastic work in offering modules, degrees, courses and education at a high level with greater flexibility for students in relation to both age and time. However, this is not enough, and that is why we need other ways of ensuring that people obtain qualifications below degree level.
In today’s rapidly changing world, it is essential that we have a skilled, educated and motivated workforce to meet the challenges of modern Britain. We must never forget that we never stop learning—all of us, throughout life, are continuing to learn—particularly in the technological age we are in. When I left Parliament in 1997, we were still using electronic typewriters. We did not have computers or mobile phones, and it was a bit of a shock when I came back in 2005. Fortunately, however, I had been at a college, Bexley College, where I was able to do some courses, so I therefore understood and could do the basics. I still cannot type very well, but that is a different matter.

Aaron Bell: I am learning a lot about my right hon. Friend’s history, which I am finding very interesting. On Friday in the Chamber, we discussed the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill, which the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) brought in. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that these measures encouraging more mature students back into education go hand-in-hand with the reforms the Government are making to flexible working, which mean that people can continue to learn while they are earning and broadening their skills?

David Evennett: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point.
Lifelong learning is important; learning is not just for the young. Opportunities should be there for people to re-enter the world of learning and training throughout their individual working life. It is good news, therefore, that the Bill creates the flexibility for individuals to decide what and when they wish to study over their working life in order to progress their life, increase their skills and make something more of themselves. I particularly welcome the lifelong loan entitlement, as it will improve access to education and certainly accelerate the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Everyone should be afforded the opportunity to reach their full potential irrespective of their background or the lack of opportunity they had at school or college. People in established careers should also have an equal opportunity to pursue further studies. As a product of social mobility—like many colleagues on both sides of the Chamber—I am a firm believer that access to education should be fair and available to all who choose to look for and pursue it. The loan will enable those trapped in unemployment or low-paid jobs to undertake further study. That will improve their skills and employability, and their opportunities throughout life.
Research by Universities UK suggests that 35% of those who considered part-time education in the past 10 years did not enrol because of their personal life or their employment situation. We have to change that in modern Britain, and that is what the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Department are doing. My constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford will be delighted to know that they can pursue further studies to suit their own pace, time and opportunities, without paying a premium for doing so.
I am keen for the simplification of the higher education system to enable wider and easier access. Research by the Department for Education suggests that the complexity of the student finance system and the difficulty in obtaining information for mature students are major  factors that deter people from going back into study. The lifelong loan entitlement will offer a system that is easier to understand—my goodness, in today’s society, don’t we need things that are easier to understand, because of the complexities of life? [Interruption.] I see Mr Deputy Speaker is agreeing with me, and he is young by comparison. Things such as clearer detail on financial entitlements will no doubt encourage more people to study. I hope the Secretary of State will agree that to get the full benefit of the scheme, we must embark on an education and information campaign, targeting those who will find it of particular interest and benefit. It is no good thinking they will just find out; we have to go out there and sell it.
I am concerned, of course, by the skills gap that is plaguing our economy, particularly in this time of considerable economic challenge for our nation. In August 2022, the Federation of Small Businesses reported that 80% of small firms were facing difficulties recruiting applicants with suitable skills. As I go round my borough and constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford, a number of businesses say that they cannot get staff who have the necessary levels of training or education. People do not have the opportunity to obtain further qualifications, and therefore those businesses cannot get the necessary skilled workforce.
We must endeavour to ensure that the UK remains an attractive investment proposition, with its skilled and talented workforce. I believe we have the people in this country, but they need the opportunity, training and skills development. We can then be No. 1 again in so many fields and be competitive across the world. We cannot afford to fall behind our counterparts, which is what we seem to have been doing. The lifelong loan entitlement will address that skills gap by enabling employees to continue to upskill as they progress through their careers.
For many, it may be more sensible to learn over a period of years because they have other commitments—families or other interests—in their lives. They may wish to develop practical experience first, and there is nothing wrong with that. People do not necessarily want to go on a three-year university course. They may not be ready for it or feel that the time is right. As our economy continues to shift towards greater automation, it will be crucial for employees to develop more technical skills. Low-skilled jobs will be those most at threat from automation, so we must equip those currently working in such jobs with the skills to ensure that they can thrive in an increasingly technological economy and society.
The Bill will be of huge benefit to all our constituents and all the countries in our United Kingdom, bringing the skills that employers want and that employees need. The result, hopefully, will be the happier and better paid workforce that we are looking for.
I believe, in all honesty, that the Government have done a considerable amount over the past decade or so and have a good record on education. I listened to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), whom I respect. I always listen to him with great interest because he is measured and reasonable—though usually wrong. But he is a nice chap, and he put forward some thought-provoking ideas for us today. That is why the Bill needs cross-party  support, including from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) of the Liberal Democrats. I am not going to get party political—the Liberal Democrats always like to do that. We are trying to be constructive.
On technical education, over the last few years we have introduced T-levels, so that all people can access a world-class education. I did the old traditional A-levels. I enjoyed them and they suited me. As we have heard, I am not very good at technology. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) will let me forget it. Nevertheless, young people can gain skills via the revamped T-levels. High quality is the key. Everything we do in education has to be high quality, not substandard. I therefore passionately support what the Government have done with T-levels, practical learning and industry placement. It is the best of both worlds.

Aaron Bell: On high quality, does my right hon. Friend recognise, from the independent Wolf review, that at least 350,000 young people were let down by courses that had little or no labour market value? That is what we need to change. As well as bringing forward lifelong learning, we need to ensure that all courses, whether for undergraduates of traditional age or older, offer value for money.

David Evennett: Absolutely. I would also highlight the £490 million in extra funding that the Government are delivering to boost training and upgrade colleges and universities across the country. I must praise my own college, Bexley College, which has now merged into London South East Colleges under the successful and inspirational leadership of Dr Sam Parrett CBE. She is a brilliant and dynamic woman who is driving the agenda we desperately need. The Government’s extra funds will boost colleges’ training and upgrade colleges. This particular college is very good. It is an amalgam of several colleges in south-east London. There is a buzz and it is looking to the future. The traditional old-fashioned FE colleges were good in their day, but their day was yesterday, or even before that, when the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester was in government in the 1980s. The Government are also investing £350 million to renovate further education colleges, which is welcome.

Robin Walker: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I could not resist the opportunity to welcome the progress being made on new science and tech labs at Worcester Sixth Form College, which I visited just the other day. The college has been transformed by successive small investments under this Government, while under the Labour Government it got the promise of a complete rebuild under Building Colleges for the Future, which then got cancelled when they ran out of money for their programme. Is that not an example of how we can invest more effectively and productively for our college estate?

David Evennett: My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point. I think we would all agree that what we need is upgrading and progress, rather than pie-in-the-sky ideas. We must get practical.
The other thing I want to highlight is that colleges in local areas should provide for local needs, boosting the skills that are necessary in that area. The skills needed  in my area of south-east London are probably different from those needed in Worcester or in other parts of the country. The Bill creates a new duty for further education colleges, sixth-form colleges and designated institutions to ensure that the provision of further education is fully aligned with local needs and requirements. This is another way to ensure we have the employment and opportunities for young people and not so young people to make a real contribution to their community, and to strengthen the accountability and performance of local colleges and the businesses involved in helping the programme forward.
There is a lot to be pleased about in this small Bill, and I look forward to debating it in Committee if I am privileged enough to be put on it by the Whips, though I do not usually blot my copybook. We will discuss certain bits of the Bill and we will all have ideas for how to tweak it, but we must be grateful to the Government for putting forward an excellent, necessary and most welcome Bill that will support the introduction of a lifelong loan entitlement from 2025 and promote a culture of upskilling and retraining.
The Bill will help to open up higher and further education by introducing new methods and limiting the fees that can be charged based on credits. That is really positive, good news. Students will therefore be charged a proportionate amount depending on the number of credits studied, encouraging more people to study by taking advantage of the flexibility that the scheme will offer. We have seen flexibility in work because of covid and changing work patterns. Many people have found that to their liking, and many businesses have as well. Flexibility must be the word for our era, because it gives opportunity to so many more people.

Julian Lewis: I obviously welcome that the fees charged will be limited, but I presume that the colleges will be able to choose the packages that they offer, so is there a danger that they will be less inclined to offer modules if they cannot charge extremely exorbitant rates for them?

David Evennett: I know that my right hon. Friend has a touch of cynicism. I am an optimist, and I believe that the colleges will want to take up the opportunity, because that will show the success of what they are doing. They are part of the local community, so they need to get real. We will have to discuss that point further. I encourage my right hon. Friend to beat the drum in the colleges in his constituency and to tell them that it is their civic or local duty—whatever we want to call it—to do these kinds of things. But we should be wary of what he says.
The Bill is the key to the Government’s skills revolution and it will support our businesses, long-term productivity and job creation. That is particularly important as we deal with the difficult times of the cost of living crisis and other things we will face in the future. We need to make the most of our opportunities. I welcome the Bill; I look forward to it passing into law and to the opportunities it will give so many people across our country for more studying, more career development, more skills and, hopefully, a more successful career.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful for being called to speak in this important debate. The Bill is somewhat technical in nature, but its objectives are to  be welcomed and applauded. We need to ensure that its provisions are implemented as soon as practically possible and that, thereafter, they deliver the desired outcome. The Bill is vital to address the skills crisis that this country faces. Moreover, we need to ensure that people from all backgrounds and of all ages have every opportunity to realise their dreams and to pursue their chosen careers; that businesses of all sizes can recruit and retain staff with the necessary skills and expertise; and that the stubborn productivity gap that has plagued the UK economy for so long is at last vanquished and eliminated.
In East Anglia, there are exciting opportunities emerging in a wide range of new industries: zero-carbon energy production, life sciences, and food and agriscience. However, a skills mismatch is holding back those sectors, and if we do not address it, businesses will go elsewhere and we will have lost a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity not only to revolutionise the local economy for the benefit of local businesses, local people and local communities in East Anglia, but to benefit the whole of the UK, not least the Treasury.
I will not go into detail on the provisions of the Bill, because the Secretary of State has already done so. I shall focus instead on why the Bill is needed, why it is welcome and what more needs to be done if it is to have the desired impact. It is first necessary to put the Bill in context. In February 2018, the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), announced a post-18 education and funding review. Sir Philip Augar’s report, which was published in May 2019, described post-18 education in England as
“a story of both care and”—
I am afraid—
“neglect”.
The Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 subsequently provided the framework for embedding lifelong learning in our tertiary education system.
The Government have quite rightly recognised the problem and the need for action. They are to be commended for introducing a comprehensive framework that can deliver much-needed reform, but I do feel a sense of frustration that the challenges are not being tackled more quickly. At times, I feel we need to be more radical and send a clear message to communities, people and businesses that wholesale change for the better is on the way.
Why is the Bill necessary? It is part of a drive to embed lifelong learning in our education and training system. The need for a lifelong learning culture is clear. Given the ageing population and the lack of people with the technical skills needed by employers, as well as technological change and the need to move rapidly to a net zero economy, we need every adult to have the capacity, motivation and opportunity to carry on learning throughout their life.
We have an ageing population. By 2030, the population aged 60 is projected to have increased by 42%, while the population aged 14 to 64 is forecast to have grown by just 3%. That has critical implications. First, people living longer might choose to work longer and must therefore be able to upskill and reskill. Secondly, those who are out of work might well benefit from accessing education and training to support them to be healthy and active in retirement. Thirdly, the pressure on public finances that an ageing population brings requires us to  ensure that people of working age who are out of work or underemployed can upskill and retrain as quickly as possible.
We must address the challenge of climate change, which will lead to dramatic changes in the world of work. New and emerging sectors, jobs and working practices will require upskilling and retraining a very large number of people. The target of net zero by 2050 requires a radical shift in the response from our skills system—a challenge that I am afraid is not currently being met.
A fourth industrial revolution is taking place in information and communication technologies. Artificial intelligence, virtual reality and robotics are profoundly changing how people work, learn, communicate and live. That will require smarter and more agile ways of living and working. People will need higher, more specialised and socialised skills. As a result of the changes in the world of work driven by digitalisation, by the fourth industrial revolution and by the transition to a green economy, CBI research predicts:
“Nine in ten workers will need some form of reskilling by 2030”.
The Bill should not be considered in a vacuum or in isolation. If it is to be a success, it must form part of a comprehensive package of measures. Let me briefly list five of them. First, there is the need to ramp up participation in adult education. Since 2004 participation rates have almost halved, from 29% to just below 15%, which means that millions of people are missing out on opportunities to retrain and upskill for a new job or career and employers are unable to fill key vacancies. Secondly, there is a need to address the consequent low levels of employer investment in work for skills. While much recent reform has rightly focused on the role of employers in the skills system, there has at the same time been a decline in the amount of investment on the part of employers themselves.
Thirdly, we need to address the situation whereby the least advantaged suffer the most and have the least opportunity to advance. At a time when more jobs require education at level 3 and above, only 60% of young people reach that level by the age of 19, while 15% fail to reach level 2. The number of people taking higher and intermediate and technical college courses is lower than it should be, given both the current skills shortages and those that can be predicted owing to retirements and economic change in the coming years. Those who do participate are far more likely to be well educated and better off. The poorest adults, with the lowest qualification levels, are the least likely to access adult training, despite being the group that will benefit most. They must not be left behind.
Fourthly, there is poor co-ordination across the education system. Further education, higher education and apprenticeships are currently treated as distinct systems in their own silos, which makes it hard for employers and others to access the overall system. There is insufficient alignment across welfare, skills and economic strategies, and that needs to change. Fifthly and finally, there has been a neglect of level 4 and level 5 provision. Sir Philip Augar’s review notes that the small number of level 4 and level 5 students translates into persistent skills gaps at technician level. That gap, I am afraid, makes England an international outlier, with our numbers declining.
What else do we need to do? As I have said, the Bill is to be welcomed, for it has a vital role to play, but it is only one piece of the jigsaw. We need more detail on the lifelong loan entitlement ahead of its introduction in 2025. It has the clear potential to be a game-changer, introducing a stronger lifelong learning culture in England. However, there are issues of detail that need to be addressed, as well as wider issues relating to how it fits into the whole tertiary education offer, including further education and apprenticeships.
As the Bill progresses through Parliament, three big systems issues need to be borne in mind. First, there is a need to instil a new lifelong learning culture. Arguably, the biggest hurdle when it comes to the success of the lifelong learning entitlement will be the issue of how quickly a new culture of lifelong learning can be developed. Secondly, there needs to be clarity on the role of employers and how the lifelong learning entitlement will work with the apprenticeship levy. Employers are central to the working of the new system being developed as part of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, and it is important that they are fully involved in the development of the lifelong learning entitlement. Thirdly, there is a need for changes in regulations to develop a coherent post- 16 education and skills strategy that is properly aligned to wider Government policies, redressing the inefficient competition that exists across the system and setting out a co-ordinated approach to an expanded lifelong education service. This should include legislation to introduce a new tertiary post-16 commission.
In addition, I have two concerns that must be addressed when the Government publish their response to the consultation carried out last year that we have heard about. First, there remain questions about eligibility and who will be entitled to access the lifelong learning entitlement. This includes rules around equivalent or lower qualifications. Secondly, the matter of maintenance support needs to be addressed. The Government are still considering how maintenance support will be adapted for the lifelong learning entitlement. This will be crucial for mature learners, who often have family commitments and caring responsibilities.
As I have mentioned, there is a danger that the lifelong learning entitlement becomes something used by well-educated people to add a year after a degree rather than by people who do not yet have a level 3 education. The pathways from lower levels need to be strengthened with better funding and maintenance support at level 3 and below, with universal credit recipients being given every opportunity to access training without loss of benefits. It is important that the provisions of the Bill are accompanied by the necessary careers advice and guidance, so that those who need it most can take full advantage of the opportunities that will become available. A strategy is needed that sets out how the lifelong learning entitlement will fit into the careers advice and guidance for individuals to access throughout their lives.
If the Bill is to be successful, it must be accompanied by systemic change, and if the House will bear with me for a few minutes I will briefly outline what the ingredients of this change might be. They could include: a 10-year education and skills strategy; a new tertiary education system with a joined-up approach to regulation and oversight; the creation of a maintenance support system that enables everyone to have a fair and reasonable  standard of living while studying training at college, across both further and higher education; the reform of the benefit entitlement system so that people who would benefit from attending college while unemployed do not lose out; and ensuring that the whole education and skills system is sustainably funded. For too long, the college system has been the Cinderella service of the education system. Significant improvements have been made, but more work is still required. Finally, we should have a support fund for providers branching into new resource-intensive areas at levels 4 and 5.
In conclusion—I think you will be pleased that I have come to this point, Mr Deputy Speaker—this Bill is to be welcomed, but it is only one part of a wide range of policies and initiatives that must be provided so that all people, whatever their backgrounds, are able to realise their full potential. If we do this, it will in turn enable businesses to prosper and allow the economy at last to move into top gear, eliminating that stubborn productivity gap. This is what is needed if we are to deliver sustained economic growth and meaningful levelling up. As the Bill moves forward, I would urge the Government to consider reasoned amendments—I know my right hon. Friend the Minister will do so—to quickly bring forward any necessary enabling and secondary legislation, and to work collaboratively, not only across this House but with universities, colleges, employers and, most of all, those people that we represent, to whom this Bill gives the opportunity to realise their full potential.

Aaron Bell: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and to speak in what has been a very good debate. I thank the Secretary of State for her opening remarks. It is a shame that there are not more Opposition Members here, but it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge the speeches from the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who are no longer in their places. They both raised thoughtful points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, and I am sure the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education and the Secretary of State will have heard them and will consider what more we can do in Committee.
I also pay tribute to the speeches of the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett). I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friends the Members for Wantage (David Johnston) and for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) in due course.
As I said in my maiden speech, if I can remember back that far, education is
“the greatest tool of social mobility that we have.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 78.]
To echo the Secretary of State, I am a Conservative because I believe in equality of opportunity and in the famous ladder of opportunity that I am sure the Minister will mention in his closing remarks.
In my maiden speech, for which I believe you were in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, I went on to talk about young people making the very best of themselves. In truth, I should have widened it out because it is not just  about young people; everyone should have the opportunity to educate themselves. I understand that we cannot offer the LLE to, say, 70 or 75-year-olds because there would be no return on the investment, but I hope that 55-year-olds, or even 60-year-olds, might benefit from lifelong learning, because they still have so much to offer.
I spoke on Friday about an 82-year-old in Chesterton in my constituency who wanted to know whether there are opportunities for flexible working in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I am sure plenty of older people are looking for opportunities not only for flexible working but to go back to college to get themselves more skills, perhaps while they are working. This Bill will go some way towards that.
I also said in my maiden speech that levelling up is about education, and not simply funding for local areas, although the funding I have secured for Newcastle-under-Lyme—more than £50 million for the borough from the future high streets funds and through the town deal—is incredibly welcome. I am glad the vice-chancellor of Keele University chairs our town deal board.
As I always say to schools, colleges, universities and businesses alike, levelling up is not simply about throwing in money, knocking down buildings, building new buildings and applying a lick of paint; true levelling up comes from the investment our businesses make, the investment we make in our public services and, most of all, the investment we make in our people.
That starts before school in the first 1,001 days that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) talks about and continues through nursery, primary school and secondary school and into further and higher education, which is the point at which it often seems to stop. If people do not have the opportunity of a forward-thinking employer that pays for training, they often do not continue to grow their skills. They obviously gain experience, but they do not have the opportunity to go out and learn new skills that might allow them to take their career in a new direction. I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill offers the opportunity of lifelong learning to people who may have studied to some degree or who may have dropped out of university, so that they are able to go back and put right what they perhaps once got wrong, or once did not value as much. They will then be able to redirect their career and perhaps their and their family’s entire future.
For too long, young people have been encouraged towards unsustainable degrees. We have a fixed model, pushed under the Blair Government, of three-year courses that all charge the same fees. When that Government introduced tuition fees, the original idea was that different institutions would charge different amounts, but that is not how the free market resolved the problem. It was apparent that if a provider charged less than the maximum —originally £1,000, and later £3,000 or £9,000—it would be advertising itself as inferior, and no provider wants to do that because they all want to have the badge.
In practice, of course, there are inferior courses and universities that are not as good as others, yet people are paying the same for every course at every university. There is no proper market signal to young people as to what is valued in the marketplace and the world of work. The Bill introduces a new method to make sure that students access courses at a fair price, and pricing  modules and short courses proportionately will go a long way towards getting the market signal out to our young people, and to older people who take advantage of lifelong learning, as to what is valued.

Julian Lewis: I recall some of these debates and it was predicted at the time that the universities, in particular, would behave in precisely the way my hon. Friend has described. I am a little bit concerned about the people who did a course that was not really viable in terms of qualifying them for a practical career. How, if at all, will they benefit from this legislation, given that, presumably, they may have used up their three years’ worth of learning allocation?

Aaron Bell: I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend was in the Chamber earlier when I intervened on the Secretary of State on precisely that point. This comes with a four-year entitlement. It is not perfect and people will have used up entitlement; I discussed this last week in the Tea Room with the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, who is in his place. The flexible loan is worth £37,000 at today’s prices—four lots of £9,250. Those who did a three-year course and found it did not do much for them may have the opportunity to do a one-year course now. When people are a bit older and wiser, they can often get as much out of a one-year course when they really want to do it as they did in three years when they were at university and perhaps were too busy in the bar, on the football pitch and so on. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and thank him for sharing his experience of those debates from back in the early days of the Blair Government. However, I do think that the Minister and the team in the Department for Education have considered this point, and I think it is one reason why they have set this at four years rather than three.
I also welcome the investment we are making in skills training more generally, and I will talk a little more about that in a moment, because I want to speak about the further and higher education institutions in my constituency. I am lucky, as it is blessed with both a fine further education establishment, Newcastle and Staffordshire Colleges Group and, specifically, Newcastle College, and a higher education institution, Keele University. It is genuinely positive for the area, if not for my re-election prospects, that we have a university in my constituency. If we could make sure the next election takes place during the holidays, I would be extraordinarily grateful, although I know that is not in your gift, Mr Deputy Speaker. I always enjoy going to Keele University and speaking to the students, even if they do not always vote the right way at the ballot box. [Interruption.] I see the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), heckling me from a sedentary position.
Keele University is very integrated now into Newcastle-under-Lyme, in a way that it has not always been, partly because of the involvement in the town deal that I spoke about earlier, with the vice-chancellor as the chair. As part of that, Keele University is going to be opening a digital society centre in the centre of Newcastle-under-Lyme. The science and innovation park at Keele is also a huge benefit to the constituency. We manufactured  the vaccine on that park; the AstraZeneca vaccine was manufactured by Cobra Biologics, which has since been taken over. A number of small businesses are also going on there, through the Denise Coates Foundation, which has funded a school of management there. All of that is essential to levelling up, having more money in our local economy and more wealth generated locally and spent locally, supporting our high street and helping us to get the growth we want in our local economy.
I will speak a little more about Keele in a moment, but first let me speak about the Newcastle and Staffordshire Colleges Group. I am delighted to say that it is becoming an institute of technology—sadly, it is in Stafford, not Newcastle-under-Lyme, but that is by the by because it will be open to people from both areas, which are very much connected. Ours was the first FE college anywhere in the country to be rated outstanding across the board by Ofsted. I wish briefly to raise a point about T-levels with the Minister. I know that the college welcomed them, and it currently has 2,259 learners studying level 3s, mostly in applied general things, mostly on BTECs. That cohort is considerably disadvantaged compared with the one doing A-levels at the college; they are eight times more likely to have education, health and care plans, twice as likely to have a learning difficulty or a disability, and 33% more likely to be economically disadvantaged and in receipt of a bursary. The college has written to me as it has concerns about the transition to T-levels and the speed with which it is occurring, and I think there are a number of practical concerns. The college is very much in favour of what the Government are doing but it has a number of practical concerns. If the Minister would be willing to meet people from the college, either on a visit, which I know he would be keen to do, or virtually in the meantime, that would be welcomed by the excellent principal, Craig Hodgson, who has written to me about those concerns. I am very blessed to have that further education establishment in my constituency, as it is changing the life chances of many of my constituents. It is also well engaged with local businesses, as it offers apprenticeships as well. Having such a good further education provider in my constituency is a fundamental part of what will help to level up Newcastle.
Let me speak a little more about Keele University, which, as I have said, is also in my constituency. A total of 31% of home undergraduates are in receipt of financial support due to low household income. That places the university 27th out of 122 English higher education institutions, according to the Office for Students. It does very well on non-continuation—keeping disadvantaged people in university—but it acknowledges that it has more to do on attainment. According to the most recent figures that I have available, in 2017-18, only 14% were mature students, and the university wants to do more about that. I am sure that the Bill will encourage more people to study at what is an excellent university in Keele. It is so excellent, in fact, that it was voted Britain’s best university, as ranked by students. It has 96% graduate employability, which is very encouraging.
I will, if I may, briefly mention Staffordshire University, which, although it is in neighbouring Stoke-on-Trent, is attended by a number of my constituents. It has a different profile: some 24.5% of its students are in quintile 1of the income deprivation affecting children index; and 50.5% of its students are mature, of whom  35.5% are full-time—that compares with 21% nationally. The university is incredibly well set up to deal with lifelong learning. There are a number of disadvantaged people in Stoke-on-Trent who did not even get GCSEs, let alone A-levels or go to university, and I hope that some of them will take advantage of the opportunities that this Bill presents.
Let me cite some figures that were provided by UCAS, for which I am grateful, to give the overall picture in my constituency. In the last cycle, there were 730 applications to higher education institutions, 600 of which were accepted. Of that, 135 were studying locally, which I think is mostly at Keele. Those numbers are lower than average. I would like to see them higher, again, to see us do better, but 28.1% of those were aged 21 plus, which is above the latest national average of 23.8%. That is encouraging, as it shows that mature students in Newcastle-under-Lyme are already taking advantage of the opportunities through UCAS.
The Bill also sits alongside our record in education in general, and how we are using education to improve people’s life chances to help level up their opportunities and outcomes. I welcome T-levels, despite the aside from the college that I mentioned, because they are a technical qualification that will help people. They provide practical learning for those who do not necessarily want to study A-levels. We have also delivered lots of money on different fronts—£490 million to boost skills training and upgrade our colleges and university, £432 million of which will fund state-of-the-art university and college facilities at 100 providers, and a further £57 million will support 20 specialist higher education providers to deliver a wider range of specialist courses of the highest quality. We have invested £350 million in renovations for further education colleges across the UK. We have brought forward £200 million of that to renovate 180 providers. That means that colleges have started immediate work in repairing and refurbishing their buildings.
Importantly, given the context of Putin’s war in Ukraine, we have provided £500 million for energy efficiency upgrades for schools and colleges, which will help them to save on their bills. A primary school will receive, on average, £16,000, a secondary school, £42,000, and further education groups approximately £290,000 each, which is very welcome and will help to make sure that we have energy efficient buildings, saving ourselves and the providers money in the long run.
We have £3 billion in the National Skills Fund that we have established. That helps individuals and small and medium-sized enterprises to access high quality education and training. Although that is not completely in the scope of the Bill, it is important that we engage with businesses at every stage on what they want. I had representatives from businesses down here just last week to attend a roundtable meeting, and they told me that their two challenges are land and planning and then skills in the local population. Therefore, everything that we can do—whether it is through apprenticeships, through training on the job or through the opportunities that the Bill will provide for people to acquire new skills, possibly taking a year out and possibly while working part time—will be welcomed by businesses in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
It is not just money that we need. We are also requiring further education establishments to provide for local needs. The Bill creates a new duty on further education colleges,  sixth-form colleges and other designated institutions to ensure that the provision of further education is fully aligned with local needs. That will be considered on an annual basis to strengthen accountability and performance, so if an area is falling behind, there will be scope for it to catch up. Finally, we need to reform initial teacher training in further education, which is part of the cycle that I spoke about earlier. We need the best quality teachers. At the moment the system is a bit too fragmented, so we need to make it easier to navigate and it needs to have high-quality, clear standards throughout. We need to ensure that public funding for teacher training goes only to high-quality providers following the standards that we and employers want to see.
In conclusion—I know that a couple of other Members wish to speak—as I said at the start, I believe in equality of opportunity and in giving people the tools they need to make more of themselves. My people in Newcastle are ambitious; indeed, all of our constituents are ambitious. They want to stretch themselves, learn new skills and make a better life for themselves and, above all, their families. As I have said, education is at the core of that. It gives people and their children the opportunity to make more of themselves, and this Bill is all about expanding that opportunity and making it available to more people—more than I considered in my maiden speech, to be honest. It will ensure that opportunities are available, with Government support and the help of teachers, lecturers and everyone else who works in the sector. I pay tribute to them, because they have been through a very tough time with covid and have had to work very hard to get back on track. This Bill will be a shot in the arm, giving them more keen students who have actively chosen to go back into learning. That is exactly what teachers and lecturers want—those are the people they want to work with. This Bill is about expanding opportunity, regardless of people’s background, previous educational history and age, and I commend it to the House.

David Johnston: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous). There have been a number of good speeches, but I was struck in particular by a couple of things said by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, who is no longer in his place. First, he spoke of FE having been a Cinderella service for a long time, and secondly, he addressed the risk of affluent people using the Bill’s provisions to get a qualification additional to those they already have. I will talk about the issue of access, which I think chimes well with my hon. Friend’s comments.
Before I entered this place in 2019, I ran charities for disadvantaged young people. Those charities pretty much worked with young people aged 16 to 25—a couple of them went all the way down to age 10, but the bulk of young people I worked with in the 16 years before becoming an MP were aged 16 to 25. I am therefore quite familiar with how the system pushes people to do three-year university courses at the age of 18. Indeed, they are set on that path before they even get to that point, because at 16 they have to choose the courses that will set them up for their desired university course. For example, if someone is not studying chemistry at A-level, they will not be admitted to a medical course. We put people on a narrow track at a very early age.
There are all sorts of debates about the international baccalaureate and whether we should study a broader range of subjects. If students are to follow the university track at 18, however, they have to pick subjects at 16, and school visits will often be to universities rather than to colleges and employers. The UCAS system—I am really glad that we are changing this—makes it incredibly easy for people in year 12 and moving into year 13 to apply to university. There is one form, on which they list five universities. The process could not be much simpler, although there are difficult things to do to put the form together. Everything says to young people, and to adults, “There is a slip road at this point, but if you miss your junction”—to mix metaphors slightly—“that is it. You will be set on an incredibly long road without the opportunity to come off at the next junction or go back and find that junction again.” That is what our whole system has done for a long time, and it has been quite instructive.
I do not say this as a criticism, but the two big influencers of young people—parents and teachers—reinforce that message. That is not a criticism, as I say, because we all have to do better in that regard. Parents often want their children to go to university, even if they did not go themselves. My parents wanted me to go to university, but I was the first generation in my family to do so. For many people, going to university is held up as the aspirational thing to do, and the alternatives are not seen in the same aspirational way, which they should be.
Most teachers did exactly what we are talking about: they got to 18, went to university, did a teacher training qualification, and joined the profession. So it is the thing that they are most familiar with, too.

Rehman Chishti: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the influencers —be they teachers or parents—who inspire individuals to go to university. A point that needs to be considered relates to the initial teacher training market review that the Department for Education has just carried out, affecting teacher recruitment. Twelve universities—including Greenwich University, which covers Universities at Medway, and the University of Durham—have been removed from teacher training opportunities, affecting more than 4,492 future teachers. If we are to inspire the younger generation to go to university, we need outstanding teachers and a spectrum of universities from across the country providing that training. Does he agree that it is absolutely right not only that we get the right teachers, but that such reviews take into account the excellent work already being carried out by teachers across those institutions?

David Johnston: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not know enough about why those universities have been removed, so I will not comment on that, but a point to which I will come later is the importance of outcomes for young people and adults. Whatever the qualification that they are studying, we have to judge the outcome that they go on to, rather than just saying, “Well, you have to go to university or you will have to do this sort of thing instead.”
Apprenticeships, as well as higher technical qualifications, which I know the Bill will enable people to do through the lifelong learning entitlement, do things that teachers and parents are not familiar with, which is quite important. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and others have talked about the importance of careers advice. The truth is that there are very few examples of good careers advice anywhere—be it in the state sector or the private sector, for the young or the old. A lot of our decisions are based on anecdote, or being told what not to do rather than what to do, without understanding the full range of available options. One thing that we have to do is to help parents and teachers understand the range of options that are available to young people. If they knew about them, they would probably be more open to promoting them.

Aaron Bell: My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on these matters. I completely agree with his point about careers advice. Does he agree that what is perhaps needed at the ages of 16 to 18 is better advice about what courses to take and what will open up the most doors? A lot of people aged 16 to 18 have no idea what career they want to take up. I know that I, for one, did not.

David Johnston: My hon. Friend makes another important point, and it leads me incredibly nicely to the point that I was just about to make.
I understand the motive behind the Labour party’s desire for 50% of young people to go to university. It was not a malign motive. Labour believed that that was aspirational and that it would help us compete, but it has clearly had a number of negative consequences. One of the most important—this goes to my hon. Friend’s point—is that we have told people, “The most important thing you can do is go to university at 18. It doesn’t particularly matter where you go to university or what you study. The most important thing is that you go to university, because we want all young people to go to university.” Thanks to a whole range of organisations, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has done great work on this issue, we now know that people who graduate from a number of institutions will earn less than they would have done had they just got a job. In 2020, the IFS found that about 20% of people who go to university—one in five—earn less than people with similar grades who just get a job.
We might dislike that that is the case—we might wish that every university or subject gave people the same earnings outcome—but when I worked in this field, people could choose from 60,000 university courses, which of course do not all give the same outcomes. Certain universities—particularly Russell Group ones—give people higher earnings, as do particular courses, such as medicine, engineering and maths. The charities I worked with overwhelmingly supported disadvantaged young people, and the truth is that it is usually those people who do not get the advice they need and who pay large amounts for courses that do not add to their employability outcomes. They do not get good information, advice and guidance at a young age from school or from parents, in the way that a middle-class child might. That is one big way in which the 50% target has prioritised quantity over quality.

Julian Lewis: I thoroughly endorse the direction of my hon. Friend’s thoughtful argument. Does he agree that, even at the Russell Group university end of the spectrum, there has been a serious issue with grade  inflation? So many people—a large majority, I think—are now awarded first and upper second-class honours in institutions where, 20 years ago, one in 10 might, if they were lucky, have got a first-class degree, that it becomes difficult for employers to pick out people for the right reasons and for the right jobs.

David Johnston: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Part of the reason why that has happened is that young people feel, “I’m making an investment here. I’m paying £9,000 a year. I’m not doing that for you to give me a 2:2 or a third at the end of it.” There has therefore been this pressure on universities—often, unfortunately, with the threat of legal action from parents who can afford it—to inflate the grades people are given. This is another unintended consequence.
People will say, “Look, it’s not just about the money you can earn after your degree,” and that is the case, but because we as individuals are making that investment at that age, we understandably want to see an impact on our earnings. However, another problem is that lots of people will never pay back the money they have borrowed, and that is a huge liability for the taxpayer. Some taxpayers have been to university themselves, and some have not, but they will all incur this cost. We lend money to people to go to university, but if they do not earn enough to be able to pay it back, the taxpayer will not get a return on that investment. At the moment, we are on course for only a quarter of people to fully pay back their student loans. That is a huge amount that the taxpayer is investing unnecessarily in something that I hope we will change through this Bill.
As has been touched on, it is also the case that the three-year, full-time model for people aged 18 does not suit every young person. Lots of the young people I used to work with at the charities I ran had caring responsibilities, either for younger siblings or ill relatives. Perhaps a member of their family had unfortunately died, and those young people therefore had greater responsibilities, or they needed to work alongside study in order to supplement the family income. As such, again, we need greater flexibility, and that is before we come on to the technological change that we are expecting. We will see some of the most radical technological change that the country has ever known, and lots of the jobs that we train people for today will become obsolete. A person might make a decision at 18 about the particular course they want to study for a particular job, and in 20 years find that that job is obsolete and that they need to retrain for something else. That is why the Bill will be so important.
As an aside, lots of jobs should not need a degree anyway—we have slipped with the 50% target, I am afraid. In order to make the lives of employers easier, we have applied a higher and higher degree threshold to weed out people when we make selection decisions. If everybody has a degree, we end up starting to ask for master’s degrees, so we have entry inflation, not just grade inflation. Above all, that target has contributed to the disparity of esteem between academic and vocational courses. As has been touched on, this is a limited, smallish Bill, so giving people the equivalent of £37,000 in today’s money to enable them to train themselves across their lifetime, at some point in the future when they decide that they need to study for qualifications that they do not yet have, is so important for what we are trying to do: create that parity of esteem.
The Bill will promote lifelong and modular learning, and set limits on course and module fees based on credits. It will also achieve subtle things. Going back to the point about the whole system being geared towards one particular model, changing from an academic year to a course year is hugely important, because when everything is geared towards academics, we are continually reinforcing the message that the academic model is the only one for people.
We know that lifelong learning has a huge number of benefits. We know it will help with earnings; for some considerable time only about one in eight of the people who are in low pay have escaped that low pay a decade later. That has been true for decades, and part of that is about progression. By the way, that is partly the job of employers —they need to have good strategies for progression —but it is also about allowing adults to train in things they are not able to do, so that they can get more skills and therefore get more money.

Barry Sheerman: I came into the Chamber after the hon. Gentleman had started his very good speech, so I hope he will forgive me. Is he trying to reinvent the individual learning accounts, which were an early attempt by Tony Blair’s Government to create that lifelong pattern of learning and open up opportunities? I was Chair of the Education Committee at the time, and unfortunately that Government found out very quickly that that scheme could be scammed, and it collapsed. Everyone said that the Government should have brought it back, even Mr Deputy Speaker, who used to be one of my students. Even he believed in that scheme, but it has never been resurrected.

David Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am a politician, so I would never try to reinvent the wheel, but I think what we are trying to do in this Bill is learn from some of the problems that the Government at the time had with that situation, because lifelong learning is so important and people will need to retrain. People cycle in and out of work, and we will need to train people for jobs that none of us has even considered. Developed economies such as ours are historically bad at retraining people for new technology—it is not just a UK problem; it is a US problem too. All the developed economies find that difficult, so the Bill is an important way in which we can help people. That is before we consider the health and wellbeing advantages of lifelong learning, which are also well documented.
The Bill is set in the context of a couple of problems with which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education is familiar. One is access. It is still the case that access to certain universities is not what it should be. Disadvantaged young people find it difficult to get into certain universities, and we have to make better progress on that—some universities are still dominated by those from private schools, and that matters for everything we are training people for—and ditto the situation with international students. Some universities have made much better progress on getting international students rather than low-income students. They do that because it gives them a lot more money, but universities need to be making a good contribution to social mobility at home.
With this lifelong learning entitlement, I hope the Minister will, as with everything else, be applying two tests. First, what are the outcomes for people who undertake  certain courses? I am agnostic about whether it is level 4 or level 8 and whether it is academic or vocational; the thing I care about most is whether the course helps someone get a better outcome than they otherwise would have had if they had not done that qualification. That unfortunately has not been the case with lots of the university courses that people have done at 18. The second test is simply this: do disadvantaged young people or older people who have been disadvantaged get their fair share of the courses that will really help them to have those better outcomes? Across degrees and apprenticeships, too often it is the most affluent and the most privileged who take most of the spaces on the things that will give the best outcomes. All that being said, this is an important Bill that is trying to get us to that parity of esteem, and I am very pleased to support it.

Siobhan Baillie: It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston), who I genuinely believe could speak for an entire day on this subject and still enthral the entire Chamber. I completely love this focus on lifelong learning. Whether short courses, long courses or life-enhancing learning, it is hugely important not only to the individual, but to the country. I am pleased that we finally have a Government who are committed to all forms of learning, jobs and sectors. I give credit to the Department for Education and all the officials in the Box as well, because I know how hard they have been working.
I did not go to university; I left home at 15 and did not do particularly well at school. I got a job as a legal secretary, and then I worked my way up. I went to night school, carried on and qualified as a solicitor. I was quite embarrassed about all that. I did not tell anybody. I remember going out with barristers and their saying, “Just give this up. It is hard work. You are going to work all day and studying at night. You are teaching aerobics as well in the evening to pay for all the law school fees. That looks like hard graft, why don’t you just go to uni?” I used to fumble around and stumble in my explanation as to why I was learning in the way I was. That was because the entire country and the Labour party for a long time had focused very much on getting 50% of youngsters into university, and there was not a lot of chat about the rest of us.
We know that a lot of parents are often very supportive of further education colleges, but mainly for other people’s children, because many families, many schools and many quarters still consider that university is the only way forward. Let us fast-forward to me as a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed candidate in Stroud. I got chatting to those at the amazing further education college, South Gloucestershire and Stroud College. I spoke to people at all our secondary schools, and I met bright and ambitious young people. On the doorsteps, I kept meeting people who had qualified through further education colleges, and I was learning all the time about these great careers. Often they were running great big departments or leading the way in their individual industries, but they tended not to talk about how they had qualified, often because they had been written off by the time they had got into colleges. We drop that part of our lives.
I started bothering Education Ministers about further education and skills, and I started a campaign called #FEFriday. I basically bang on about further education every single Friday on all my social media. What I have learned from all that is just how valuable everything that goes on in our colleges is and how important our lifelong learning programmes are. I remind everybody that during the pandemic the professions that people missed the most were the chefs, hairdressers, childminders, those in beauty and those in construction. We should remember when we were not allowed plumbers in our houses, and how much trouble that caused. I absolutely welcome this Bill, the focus on lifelong learning and finding a way to support that financially.
Similar to other Members, I have questions for the Minister that I know he will deal with about the funding behind the Bill for our colleges and how much that will help them. They have a real crisis in recruitment. They are seeing other colleges and other sectors providing golden hellos and cash to recruit and retain staff, which FE colleges cannot offer. Similar to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), I am interested to see how this Bill works alongside the apprenticeship levy, which we could have another very long debate on, and how we are ensuring that we are seeing reforms.
I want to hear—not necessarily today—a little more about the polling and work that the Department has done to look into the perception of taking on more debt, because when I was growing up I did not want to get into debt. That is the reality for lots of people in my communities. That is why I worked to learn, and it is why I made sure I was teaching those aerobics classes to pay my fees.

Aaron Bell: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the contributions about debt, particularly, I regret to say, from Opposition Members, have been very unhelpful? I have found that the best advice has often come from Martin Lewis, who is very widely trusted on these things. Going to university or taking on any course, as people could under the Bill, should not be seen as a debt in the traditional sense of the term; it operates for UK-based people much more like a graduate tax than actual debt, and that framing is far more important, because that will encourage people into learning, rather than discourage them.

Siobhan Baillie: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we look into how these things work, we see that it is not a debt, but very much an enabler. However, we know that many people feel that it is a debt. I want to understand how the Department has looked at this issue and how we deal with those concerns going forward.
In the final minutes I have, I want to make two separate points: first on green skills, then on employability. I wrote an article some time ago that set out and argued that net zero cannot happen without know-how, but we have effectively got a green skills emergency. There is a challenge to reskill those who work in existing industries that will be affected by the transition. Fossil fuel production in the North sea, for example, created skilled and well-paid workers who are sorely needed to make the transition successful, but they need to have a skills bridge to make sure they are being retrained for future industries. I am interested to know how the lifelong learning entitlement can help that.
The second issue with the skills emergency is educating our young people. We have a huge skills gap for our future workforce, which urgently needs closing. I did some work with the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) to create a nature GCSE and engage people. My main message to young people when I go into schools is, “Do not lie down on motorways or glue yourselves to stuff. Do your STEM subjects and make sure you are learning well, because if you become scientists, you will be fixing the environmental challenges that we have today, and you will be the saviours of our future.”
I encourage people to look at the Onward report, “Green Jobs, Red Wall”. I work closely with the Onward think-tank, and it is excellent. I will run out of time if I go through that report, but alongside the Bill, it is important that the Department for Education works with other Departments to ensure that the landscape is set up so that we educate, encourage people to gain skills and encourage people to take on more courses. However, unless we get the factories up and motoring and unless we get the seed investment into some areas of tech, the jobs will not be there, so I ask the Department for Education please to work with other Departments.
On employability, I started the all-party parliamentary group on the future of employability in direct response to the calls of employers in Stroud, which are echoed around the country, about recruitment issues; the calls of potential employees who are feeling burnt out post pandemic; the high number of people with mental health issues; and the millions of people on welfare. I have also been fighting the good fight on childcare, because we have a huge group of economically inactive people—mainly mothers—who are not working at full tilt.
I had been looking at the issue and I spoke to a good friend, Ronel Lehmann, who started an employment company called Finito. It is his job to get people work ready, so we put our heads together and started the APPG, because I passionately believe in the power of work doing good. I can see that thousands of people are no longer work ready, that many millions are not working at full tilt, and that people do not feel that they have a place in the workforce because they do not feel that they can engage.
All the evidence tells us that work is the fastest route out of poverty. It gives us a reason to get out of bed and it is good for mental health and for relationships. It is also good for children to see their parents have a routine and a sense of purpose. We do not always have to like our jobs—there are days, even though it is a great privilege to be here, when we do not like our jobs—but we have to send a strong message to the country that, “Work is good for you. Work will help not only you and your family, but the country.”
Having a focus on lifelong learning, on employability and on ensuring that we are getting people work ready and into a job—and that once they are in a job, they can transition into a more responsible part of that job or to a new job—is the quickest way for people to feel sustained and fulfilled. I look forward to working with the Minister, and I believe passionately in what he and the Secretary of State, who is now in her place, are trying to do. I am genuinely ambitious for every single person I meet, and I think the Front-Bench team from the Department for  Education feel exactly the same, so I wish the Bill Godspeed and I look forward to making sure that it happens.

Nigel Evans: We now come to the wind-ups. I call the shadow Minister.

Matt Western: I have benefited from training courses and adult education throughout my career, as I am sure many hon. Members have. Although some of the skills that I developed may not have been directly relevant to my employment at the time, they proved incredibly useful later in life. Like the Minister and the Secretary of State, I am therefore a deeply committed believer in the power of lifelong learning.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who participated in the debate, although perhaps I will not refer to them all in my summing up. I was particularly interested to hear some of the historical perspectives from a century ago, or perhaps 40 years ago—certainly I remember Peter Walker from my youth. They give context to the fact that some of these challenges have been around for some time, and show how important it is that we address them collectively.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who is not back in his place, rightly raised the issue of productivity. I am particularly concerned about that and about how the performance of the UK economy has fallen back. As far as I am concerned, it is not a puzzle and there are easy ways to resolve it. The fact is, however, that our relative productivity is 20% behind that of France. He also raised questions about eligibility and maintenance support, especially for carers, which are concerns that the Opposition share.
I was interested to hear the discussion between the hon. Members for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) about debt. Of course, we have to put that in the context of debt for students being raised to £9,250, and the impact of that. We are now in a situation where maintenance loans are relatively frozen, which is frustrating, because it reduces the breadth and opportunity for people and reduces young people’s access to education.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) had certain queries and asked about the burden that might fall on the sector, which is a real concern that I also picked up on. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) echoed my concerns about the mechanism of the Bill and the fact that there was no actual policy within it. She asked whether the Government would now abolish the ELQ rule, which is one of the many questions that we will put to the Government in Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) for raising individual learning accounts. They were put forward by the Labour Government, but there were concerns and difficulties with them when they were introduced, because of some of the fraud that they led to.
As I alluded to in my opening speech, the need for lifelong learning is greater than ever. We have been on a slippery slope of economic decline for too long, with UK GDP per capita growing at an average annual rate of 0.5% in real terms between 2010 and 2021, according to the World Bank. The Labour party is resolute in its  determination to reverse that trend, so much so that it is one of our guiding national missions. In that vein, we are prepared to support the Minister throughout the Bill’s passage, assuming that we see fuller detail in due course.
As I said in my opening remarks, however, there remain far too many gaps, questions and uncertainties at this critical stage. We have a frame, but the real work is yet to be done. In essence, it is a promise—not an empty promise, but a promise that needs substantiating. Many questions have been asked in this debate, such as about the fee setting for modules and courses; the quality and how the Government plan for that to be determined; and, in particular, the role that the OfS will have.
Many of those questions would be resolved if the Minister were prepared to finally publish the LLE consultation response. I raised many questions in my opening remarks that I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister about shortly, but my lasting message is to please publish the response to the consultation as a matter of urgency. I look forward to working with the Minister to flesh out this most skeletal of Bills, and I hope that we can work constructively in future.

Robert Halfon: I thank the shadow spokesman for the Labour party, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), for the constructive way in which he has approached the Bill, and the shadow spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I knew Gordon Marsden well—he was my opposite number when I last held this post a few years ago. He is a good man and he knows the subject inside out.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington asked about the consultation response. We have said that we will publish it before Report stage. He will know that it is not specifically aligned to the measures in the Bill, but about the wider policy of the LLE. He wants us to introduce the LLE at speed, which is exactly what we are trying to do, but we want to do it carefully and to make sure that we respond to the consultation following all the submissions that we had. As I say, it will be published by Report stage, if not before.

Matt Western: The Minister is a decent individual, so I ask that we have sufficient time to consider the response before Committee, given that it has been 10 months since the consultation.

Robert Halfon: I repeat that the consultation will definitely be ready by Report stage, if not before; I guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that it will be ready by Report.
The hon. Gentleman asked about fee limits. He will know that the Secretary of State can set fee limits as a result of the Higher Education Act 2004. The Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 built on that and allowed for flexible and modular learning. That legislation has long roots in the Augar report as well, so the Government have clearly set the direction of travel.
We will be having regular consultation with stakeholders as well. The hon. Members for Warwick and Leamington and for Twickenham asked about the hourly value of credits in the Bill. The Government feel that the number of learning hours in a credit is an area that should continue to be governed from a quality standards perspective, rather than from a fee limits perspective, and we have legislated accordingly. In the Bill, the credits are used to signify the total amount of learning time that a student would ordinarily be expected to spend to complete a particular course or part of a course. However, I can assure both spokespeople that further details on the number of learning hours associated with credits will be set out in the regulations. Where providers choose not to use credits in this way for certain courses, these courses will have the fee limit determined using a default credit value, but they will face no penalty or reduction overall as a result.
To turn to my successor as Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) spoke quite interestingly about his father. I have read a book about his father, who was a very good man. My hon. Friend talked about the burden of regulation, and our intention is to simplify regulation, not to add to it. Of course, those institutions that offer the LLE will be registered with the OfS. He talked about partnerships between further education and higher education. I absolutely agree, and I think this policy will rocket-boost that. There are already examples, and I can give him the great example of Nottingham Trent University and the college in Mansfield. I repeat that the consultation will be ready by Report.
I have answered some of the questions of the hon. Member for Twickenham, but on the point about the equivalent learner qualification, I can only say that we will be able to tell her when the consultation has been published. However, I hope she will not be unhappy with that, and I appreciate her support. Again, on maintenance, I envisage a similar system to what exists now for the current student loan system, but the full details will be in the consultation on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made a very important speech, and he is passionate about further education and about championing it. He is absolutely right about employer investment. That is why we introduced the apprenticeship levy—it is not part of the Bill and it is separate, but it is very important—so that we would have business investment in skills. He talked about the disadvantaged, and he is absolutely right. They will be able to do modules and flexible learning, and they will have more access to courses they want to do than they otherwise would have had. One of the reasons for the decline in part-time learning is the three-year loan, and they will be able to do short courses or modules of courses. [Interruption.] Of course, I will give way. Sorry, I thought somebody was asking me to give way, but it was just my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) being very noisy, as usual. I used to work for him many years ago, so I can say that. This will be published in the consultation, but the LLE, as has been highlighted, will concentrate on levels 4 to 6 and it will have a phased approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) talked powerfully and spoke about good outcomes for students. Of course I will meet his new  college group. On local business involvement in qualifications, that is entirely why we have the local skills improvement plans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) made a brilliant speech, as is his wont. He will know that we have introduced UCAS for apprenticeships and hope to expand that over the coming months and years. He is right that we should not just have been saying, “University, university, university”, but “Skills, skills, skills”.
I am delighted, as I say, by the positive response to the Bill. Universities UK has said that it is a welcome step with a more flexible system of opportunity at its heart, and I thank all Members who have spoken. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, the Bill is a major step forward in our mission to revolutionise access to post-18 education and skills through the introduction of the lifelong loan entitlement.
I want to respond to an additional point about the number of adult learners. That number has increased by 4.3% from 2021-22 to 2022-23, and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington will know that many adults are now doing apprenticeships and different kinds of adult learning skills.
The Bill has just three clauses, but in supporting the LLE it will transform lives. It will transform the lives of working people on low incomes, it will transform the lives of carers who need to balance their commitments alongside study, and it will transform the lives of anyone who wants to upskill in their existing career or propel themselves into a new one. The LLE will enable access to modules and courses in a way that has not been possible before. It will provide individuals with a loan entitlement equivalent to four years of post-18 education to use over their working life. Regardless of background, income or circumstance, people will have access to a flexi-travelcard to jump on and off their learning as opposed to being confined to a single advance ticket. This is not just a train journey; it is a life journey.
The Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill brings in the next piece of legislation to support delivery of the LLE from 2025. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out, the Bill has three core elements. First, it will enable limits for tuition fees to be based on credits. Currently, tuition fees are set for complete years of full courses only. This change means that short courses and modules will be priced appropriately in comparison with and alongside longer courses—for example, degree programmes.
Secondly, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, this Bill introduces the concept of a course year. Currently, tuition fee limits are based on academic years of study. This change will allow fee limits to be applied more accurately to courses that are not aligned with traditional academic years.
Finally, this Bill allows for an overall maximum chargeable number of credits for each type of course. Currently, a maximum can only be set in relation to an academic year. This will prevent students being charged excessively for their studies. In sum, the Bill will lay the groundwork to ensure that fee limits are the same for a learner who completes a qualification by studying each individual module at their own pace as it would be for them to study a typical full-time course across three academic years.

David Evennett: Does the Minister agree that the Bill will be transformational? By enabling people to change careers, change skills and develop talents throughout their working lives, it will make people’s lives better and their opportunities much greater?

Robert Halfon: My right hon. Friend, who made a brilliant speech, is absolutely right. We will also be resourcing this in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) wanted with our extra spending on skills and further education colleges. I also thank her for her important speech.

Alun Cairns: Will my right hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.]

Robert Halfon: I just want to answer some other questions that the Labour spokesman asked first.
To be clear, as part of the pathway towards the LLE, the Government will stimulate the provision of high-quality technical education at levels 4 and 5 through the HE short-course trial that he talked about, with 22 providers. [Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. Could I ask Members to be quiet, because we cannot hear what the Minister is saying and he is not able to hear where interventions are coming from?

Robert Halfon: We will keep the student finance system under review to ensure it is delivering value for money both for students and the taxpayer. The forecast costs for the LLE, which the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington asked about, will be outlined in a future spending review. He also asked about the QAA. It released a public statement in July 2022 requesting to step down from its position as the designated quality body. We are currently consulting on the de-designation of the QAA as required by the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. That consultation closes on 3 March.

Alun Cairns: I am hugely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Clearly, this is a devolved area of policy in the nations of the UK, but what discussions has he had with the devolved Administrations? Students from all parts of the UK clearly cross borders quite frequently, and there will be implications—not only for funding, but for a whole range of issues affecting those impacted by this Bill.

Robert Halfon: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We will be able to explain further once the consultation paper has been published, before Report.

Robin Walker: My right hon. Friend will know that the difference between the Report and Committee stages can often be a few days. Sometimes in this House it can even be a few hours. I am sure he will recognise that it would benefit the House enormously in its scrutiny if Members could have sight of the Government’s response to the consultation ahead of Committee, when we will debate the detail of the Bill. I know he cannot make that commitment right now, and I appreciate the commitment he has made to bring it forward before Report, but will he give every consideration to whether that response could be brought forward any faster in the passage of the Bill, so that the House can give the most effective and positive scrutiny to what, as we have heard today, is a good idea in principle? [Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. Once again, there are clearly important interventions being made. I am sure right hon. and hon. Members want to hear those interventions, and the answers as well. I urge all colleagues to listen to the remaining part of the debate. Even though there is an important statement coming, we want to hear the interventions and answers.

Robert Halfon: Of course I will consider the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and others across the House. We will try to get the consultation out speedily, but it will be published by Report.

Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as we look to educate people perhaps in middle age into new skills and to improve their higher education for the future, it would be good to ensure that we get the sort of skills we need as a country, and to have a form of workforce planning? As we know, we are short of doctors and nurses, but there are others areas such as welders, life sciences and so on where we have great hopes and needs for future industry. Does he think there is a way of directing that sort of effort in a more planned way?

Robert Halfon: That is exactly what the Government’s programme is doing. We are investing in employer-led qualifications—that is exactly what this is about—and the LLE will enable many millions more people to have access to get on the skills ladder of opportunity.

Mike Penning: As people look to retrain in later life, can we ensure that our armed forces have the support they need after serving their King, Queen and country, if they need to retrain after they leave the armed forces?

Robert Halfon: The beauty of the Bill is that it will enable anyone to retrain and do long courses, short courses or modules at a time of their own choosing, building up credits along the way. Those who leave the Army will be able to do that kind of skilled retraining.

Gary Sambrook: Does the Minister agree that as well as the Bill and Government support, the £6.6 million of investment in Cadbury College in King’s Norton in my constituency will ensure that people have the facilities and resources to give people the skills they need for later in life—[Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. Once again it is getting very noisy, and we are not able to hear the Minister’s answers. I urge colleagues to listen to the answers that the Minister is giving.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could make an inquiry into whether the loud speakers are turned up. Although there is some noise in the Chamber, it is actually rather quiet coming out of the speakers in our Benches.

Rosie Winterton: I think the situation would be helped—I can still hear a lot of noise, even when I am speaking—[Interruption.] Perfect. I urge colleagues to keep the level of noise down, and then we will be able to hear what the Minister is saying.

Robert Halfon: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook). He has hit the nail on the head. On the point of order, it is never quiet when my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield is in the House.
Finally, let me respond to one of the questions from the hon. Member for Twickenham regarding how the student loan repayment mechanism will work compared with now. We are building the LLE on a proven system, consciously designed both to support students pursuing higher education, and share the cost fairly with the taxpayer. Like the current student loan system, repayments will be linked to income not interest rates or the amount borrowed.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions today, and I hope to have addressed as many points as possible. I reiterate the significance of this Bill. It is a further piece of the jigsaw of the transformative reforms that will improve our skills system and revolutionise how and when people can and do access study. That sentiment is echoed by the sector. Professor Tom Bewick of the Federation of Awarding Bodies emphasised the Bill’s
“potential to be the most radical entitlement to adult education, skills training and retraining (delivered at the point of need), ever introduced.”
The reforms are a step forward, providing everyone with a ladder of opportunity to get the skills, security and prosperity they need.
The Government are not only expanding high-quality opportunities, the rungs of the ladder, which encompass careers, quality qualifications, skills and lifelong learning, but through the Bill and the LLE we are building the top rung of the ladder—social justice—by expanding access to quality lifelong educational opportunities that for the most disadvantaged pupils will mean levelling up productivity and employment, improving the skills pipeline and supporting people into fulfilling and lasting careers. I know hon. Members will join me in supporting that greater flexibility in our post-18 education and skills system, removing barriers to ensure that everyone is empowered to access further and higher education when and how it suits them. The Bill will promote equality and access to education, whether students are undertaking a degree or a module of a degree, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 28 March 2023.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mike Wood.)
Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Powers of Attorney Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Powers of Attorney Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mike Freer.)

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Building and Buildings

That the draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Telecommunications

That the draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 17 January, be approved.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Rishi Sunak: Before I begin, I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Betty Boothroyd, who passed away yesterday. She was a remarkable woman who commanded huge admiration and respect as the first female Speaker of this House. She was as firm as she was fair and she presided over many historic moments in this House, among them the debates on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Her passion, wit and immeasurable contribution to our democracy will never be forgotten.
Mr Speaker, let us also send our very best wishes to Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell and his family. He is a man of immense courage, who both on and off duty has devoted himself to the service of others. This House stands united with the people and leaders of all communities across Northern Ireland in condemning those who are trying to drag us back to the past. They will never succeed.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Northern Ireland protocol. After weeks of negotiations, today we have made a decisive breakthrough. The Windsor framework delivers free-flowing trade within the whole United Kingdom. It protects Northern Ireland’s place in our Union and it safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. By achieving all this, it preserves the delicate balance inherent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It does what many said could not be done: removing thousands of pages of EU laws and making permanent, legally binding changes to the protocol treaty itself. That is the breakthrough we have made. Those are the changes we will deliver. Now is the time to move forward as one United Kingdom.
Before I turn to the details, let us remind ourselves why this matters. It matters because at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the reason it has endured for a quarter of a century is equal respect for the aspirations and identities of all communities, and all its three strands. But the Northern Ireland protocol has undermined that balance. How can we say the protocol protects the Belfast/Good Friday agreement when it has caused the institutions of that agreement to collapse? So, in line with our legal responsibilities, we are acting today to preserve the balance of that agreement and chart a new way forward for Northern Ireland.
I pay tribute to: our European friends for recognising the need for change, particularly President Von der Leyen; my predecessors for laying the groundwork for today’s agreement; and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary for their perseverance in finally persuading the EU to do what it spent years refusing to do: to rewrite the treaty and replace it with a radical, legally binding new framework.
Today’s agreement has three equally important objectives: first, allowing trade to flow freely within our UK internal market; secondly, protecting Northern Ireland’s place in our Union; and thirdly, safeguarding sovereignty and closing the democratic deficit. Let me take each, in turn.
Core to the problems with the protocol was that it treated goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as if they were crossing an international customs border. This created extra costs and paperwork for businesses, who had to fill out complex customs declarations.  It limited choice for the people of Northern Ireland and it undermined the UK internal market—a matter of identity, as well as economics. Today’s agreement removes any sense of a border in the Irish sea and ensures the free flow of trade within the UK.
We have secured a key negotiating objective: the introduction of a new green lane for goods destined for Northern Ireland, with a separate red lane for those going to the EU. Within the green lane, burdensome customs bureaucracy will be scrapped and replaced with data sharing of ordinary, existing commercial information. Routine checks and tests will also be scrapped. The only checks will be those required to stop smugglers and criminals. Our new green lane will be open to a broad, comprehensive range of businesses across the UK. I am pleased to say that we have also permanently protected tariff-free movement of all types of steel into Northern Ireland. For goods going the other way, from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, we have scrapped export declarations; delivering, finally, completely unfettered trade. The commitment to establish the green lane is achieved by a legally binding amendment to the text of the treaty itself. This is fundamental, far-reaching change and it permanently removes the border in the Irish sea.
Perhaps the single most important area of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is food. Three quarters of the food in Northern Ireland’s supermarkets comes from the rest of the UK, yet the protocol applied the same burdens on shipments from Cairnryan to Larne as between Holyhead and Dublin. If it was implemented in full we would see supermarket lorries needing hundreds of certificates for every individual item, every single document checked and supermarket staples like sausages banned altogether. More delays. More cost. Less choice. Today’s agreement fixes all this with a new, permanent, legally binding approach to food. We will expand the green lane to food retailers, and not just supermarkets but wholesalers and hospitality, too. Instead of hundreds of certificates, lorries will make one simple, digital declaration to confirm that goods will remain in Northern Ireland. Visual inspections will be cut from 100% now to just 5%. Physical checks and tests will be scrapped, unless we suspect fraud, smuggling or disease, so there will be no need for vets in warehouses.
Of course, to deliver this we need to reassure the EU that food imports will not be taken into Ireland, so we will ask retailers to mark a small number of particularly high risk food products as “not for EU”, with a phased roll-out of this requirement to give them time to adjust. More fundamentally, we have delivered a form of dual regulation for food, the single biggest sector by far for east-west trade and one of the most important in people’s lives. Under the protocol, retail food products made to UK standards could not be sold in Northern Ireland. Today’s agreement completely changes that. This means the ban on British products like sausages entering Northern Ireland has now been scrapped. If it is available on supermarket shelves in Great Britain, then it will be available on supermarket shelves in Northern Ireland. We still need to make sure that goods moved into Northern Ireland do not risk bringing in animal and plant diseases, but that is clearly a common sense measure, never opposed by anyone, to prevent diseases circulating within the long-standing single epidemiological zone on the island of Ireland.
That brings me to the treatment of parcels. If the protocol was fully implemented, every single parcel travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be subject to full international customs. You would have needed a long, complex form to send every single parcel, even a birthday present for a niece or nephew, and you could only have shopped online from retailers willing to deal with all that bureaucracy, with some already pulling out of Northern Ireland. Today’s agreement fixes all of this. It achieves something we have never achieved before: removing requirements of the EU customs code for people sending and receiving parcels. Families can, rightly, send packages to each other without filling in forms, online retailers can serve customers in Northern Ireland as they did before, and businesses can ship parcels through the green lane—all underpinned by data sharing by parcel operators, with a phased roll-out and time for them to adjust.
No burdensome customs bureaucracy. No routine checks. Bans on food products: scrapped. Steel tariff rate quotas: fixed. Tariff reimbursement scheme: approved. Vet inspections: gone. Export declarations: gone. Parcels paperwork: gone. We have delivered what the people of Northern Ireland asked for and the Command Paper promised—we have removed the border in the Irish sea.
To preserve the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, we also need to protect Northern Ireland’s place in our Union. The Windsor framework is about making sure that Northern Ireland gets the full benefit of being part of the United Kingdom in every respect. Under the protocol, in too many ways that simply was not the case. Take tax. When I was Chancellor, it frustrated me that when I cut VAT on solar panels or beer duty in pubs, those tax cuts did not apply in Northern Ireland. We have amended the legal text of the treaty so that critical VAT and excise changes will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. That means zero rates of VAT on energy-saving materials will now apply in Northern Ireland. Reforms to alcohol duty to cut the cost of a pint in pubs will now apply in Northern Ireland. Because we now have control over VAT policy, we can make sure that the EU’s plan to reduce the VAT threshold by £10,000 will not apply in Northern Ireland, nor will the SME VAT directive that would have brought huge amounts of EU red tape for small businesses.
We are also making subsidy control provisions work as intended. Already, just 2% of subsidy measures in Northern Ireland fall within the scope of the EU approvals under the protocol. Nevertheless, today’s agreement goes further, addressing the so-called reach-back of EU state aid law by imposing stringent new tests. For the EU to argue that we are in breach of its rules, it would now have to demonstrate that there is a real, genuine and material impact on Northern Ireland’s trade with the EU. That is a much higher threshold than in the protocol, limiting disputes to what the 2021 Command Paper called
“subsidies on a significant scale relating directly to Northern Ireland”.
We have also protected the special status of agriculture and fisheries subsidies in Northern Ireland, which will be completely outside the EU’s common agricultural policy. All that means that the problem of reach-back is fixed.
As well as tax and spend, the UK Government have a responsibility to protect the supply of medicines to all its citizens, but our ability to do that was constrained by  the protocol. The biggest problem is that drugs approved for use by the UK’s medicines regulator are not automatically available in Northern Ireland. Imagine someone suffering with cancer in Belfast seeing a potentially life-changing new drug available everywhere else in the UK, but unable to access it at home. When the current grace period ends in 2024, the situation will get worse still: expensive and burdensome checks on all medicines; companies having to manufacture drugs with two completely different labels and supply chains; and pharmacies needing to check every package with complex scanners.
When 80% of Northern Ireland’s medicines come from Great Britain, those frictions pose a serious risk to the supply of medicines to the people of Northern Ireland. To fix that, today’s agreement achieves something unprecedented: it provides dual regulation for medicines. The UK’s regulator will approve all drugs for the whole UK market, including Northern Ireland, with no role for the European Medicines Agency. That fully protects the supply of medicines from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, and once again asserts the primacy of UK regulation. The same medicines, in the same packs, with the same labels, will be available in every pharmacy and hospital in the United Kingdom. Crucially, dual regulation means that Northern Ireland’s world-leading healthcare industry, which brings much-needed jobs and investment, can still trade with both the EU and UK markets. This is a landmark deal for patients in Northern Ireland. It is a permanent solution that brings peace of mind.
The protocol banned quintessentially British products going to Northern Ireland. When people wanted to import oak trees to mark Her late Majesty’s platinum jubilee, the protocol stood in their way. It suspended the historic trade in seed potatoes between Scotland and Northern Ireland. If implemented, it would create massive costs and bureaucracy for people travelling around the UK with their pets, disrupting family life and our family of nations. That is why today’s agreement will lift the ban on shrubs, plants and trees going to Northern Ireland. It will lift the ban on the movement of seed potatoes—particularly important for Scottish businesses. We will deliver that by expanding the existing UK plant passport scheme.
When it comes to pets, we have made sure that people from Northern Ireland will have completely free access to travel to Great Britain. A pet owner travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland just needs to make sure that their pet is microchipped and then they will simply need to tick a box when booking their travel. Whether it is lower VAT rates, lower beer duty, jubilee oaks in garden centres, seamless travel with pets, seamless trade in seed potatoes or the seamless supply of cutting-edge medicines, all that is now available for everyone, everywhere in the United Kingdom.
The Windsor framework goes further still, by safeguarding sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland and eliminating the democratic deficit. Fundamentally, the protocol meant that the EU could impose new laws on the people of Northern Ireland without their having a say. Some Members of this House, whose voices I deeply respect, say that EU laws should have no role whatsoever in Northern Ireland. I understand that view and I am sympathetic to it, but for as long as the people of Northern Ireland continue to support their businesses having privileged access to the EU market, and if we  want to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland—as we all do—there will be some role for EU law. The question is: what is the absolute minimum amount necessary to avoid a hard border?
Today’s agreement scraps 1,700 pages of EU law. The amount of EU law that applies in Northern Ireland is less than 3%, and the people of Northern Ireland retain the right to reject that 3% through next year’s consent vote. However, that consent vote is about the whole protocol so it cannot, by its nature, provide oversight of individual new laws. It does not address the No. 1 challenge to sovereignty made by the protocol: the EU’s ability to impose new or amended goods laws on Northern Ireland without its having a say. To address that, today’s agreement introduces a new Stormont brake.
The Stormont brake does more than just give Northern Ireland a say over new EU laws; it means that it can block them. How will that work? The democratically elected Assembly can oppose new EU goods rules that would have significant and lasting effects on their everyday lives. It will do so on the same basis as the petition of concern mechanism in the Good Friday agreement, needing the support of 30 Members from at least two parties. If that happens, the UK Government will have a veto. We will work with the Northern Ireland Assembly and all parties to codify how the UK Government will use that veto.
Let me tell the House the full significance of that breakthrough. The Stormont brake gives the institutions of the Good Friday agreement a powerful new safeguard. It means that the United Kingdom can veto new EU laws if they are not supported by both communities in Northern Ireland. Yes, it is true that until now the EU had refused to consider treaty change; we were told that it was impossible, and that EU negotiators would never consider it. The Stormont brake has been introduced by fundamentally rewriting the treaty—specifically, the provisions relating to dynamic alignment. That is a permanent change and it ends the automatic ratchet of EU law. If the veto is used, the European courts can never overturn our decision.
The EU has also explicitly accepted an important principle in the political declaration. It is there in black and white that the treaty is subject to the Vienna convention. This means that, unequivocally, the legal basis for the Windsor framework is in international law. I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for his support in negotiating this point. It puts it beyond all doubt that we have now taken back control.
From the very start, we have listened closely and carefully to views on all sides of this debate. I am grateful to many Members of this House, the communities of Northern Ireland and the voices of business and civil society for putting forward their suggestions. I want particularly to thank the Northern Ireland business groups that I have spoken to. I hope in today’s agreement they recognise that we have addressed their concerns. We are delivering stability, certainty, simplicity, affordability and clarity, as well as strengthened representation for the businesses of Northern Ireland.
I also want to speak directly to the Unionist community. I understand and have listened to your frustrations and concerns, and I would not be standing here today if I did not believe that today’s agreement marks a turning point for the people of Northern Ireland. It is clearly in  the interests of the people, and those of us who are passionate about the cause of Unionism, for power sharing to return.
Of course, parties will want to consider the agreement in detail, a process that will need time and care. There are, of course, many voices and perspectives within Northern Ireland, and it is the job of Government to respect them all, but I have kept the concerns raised by the elected representatives of Unionism at the forefront of my mind, because it is their concerns with the protocol that have been so pronounced.
What I can say is this: our goal has been to ensure the economic rights of the people of Northern Ireland under the Act of Union and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, placing them on an equal footing with the rest of the UK with respect to tax, trade and the availability of goods. We have worked to end the prospect of trade diversion, removed any sense of a border for UK internal trade, removed routine customs or checks for goods destined for Northern Ireland, removed thousands of pages of existing EU law and introduced a UK veto on dynamic alignment, through the Stormont brake. We have created a form of dual regulation where it works and is needed the most, in sectors like medicines and food retail. We have delivered unfettered access to the whole UK market for Northern Ireland’s businesses, and we will take further steps to avoid regulatory divergence in future. We have secured a clear EU commitment and process to manage future changes with a special goods body.
All of this means that Northern Ireland’s businesses have continued access to the EU market, as they requested. It means that we have protected the letter and the spirit of Northern Ireland’s constitutional guarantee in the Belfast agreement, with the Stormont brake creating an effective cross-community safeguard. There are two distinct economies on the island of Ireland, and that will remain the case. Today’s agreement puts it beyond all doubt that Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market and the United Kingdom is fully restored.
I want to conclude by directly addressing the question of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. As I and my predecessors always said, the Bill was only ever meant to be a last resort, meant for a world where we could not get negotiations going. As the Government said at the time of its introduction, our
“clear preference remains a negotiated solution”.
Now that we have persuaded the EU to rewrite fundamentally the treaty text of the protocol, we have a new and better option. The Windsor framework delivers a decisively better outcome than the Bill, achieving what people said could not be done and what the Bill does not offer. It permanently removes any sense of a border in the Irish sea. It gives us control over dynamic alignment, through the Stormont brake, beyond what the Bill promised. The Bill did not change a thing in international law, keeping the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and leaving us open to months—maybe years—of uncertainty, disruption and legal challenge. Today’s agreement makes binding legal changes to the treaty itself and is explicitly based on international law. Unlike the Bill, it is an agreement that provides certainty  and stability and, crucially, can start delivering benefits almost immediately for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland.
Of course, the House would expect to be informed of the Government’s updated legal position on whether there is a lawful basis to proceed with the Bill, so I am publishing it today. It says that because we have achieved a new negotiated agreement, which preserves the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the original and sound legal justification for the Bill has now fallen away. In other words, neither do we need the Bill nor do we have a credible basis to pursue it. We will therefore no longer proceed with the Bill, and the EU will no longer proceed with its legal actions against the UK. Instead, we will pursue the certainty of a new way forward with the Windsor framework.
Let me just remind the House of the full breadth and significance of what we have achieved today. We have achieved free-flowing trade, with a green lane for goods, no burdensome customs bureaucracy, no routine checks on trade, no paperwork whatsoever for Northern Irish goods moving into Great Britain and no border in the Irish sea. We have protected Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, with state aid reach-back fixed, the same tax rules applying everywhere, vet certificates for food lorries gone, the ban on British sausages gone, parcel paperwork gone, pet paperwork gone, garden centres now selling the same trees, supermarkets selling the same food and pharmacies selling the same medicines. We have safeguarded sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland, with the democratic deficit closed, the Vienna convention confirmed and thousands of pages of EU law scrapped. With the Stormont brake, we have safeguarded democracy and sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland.
That is the choice before us, Mr Speaker. Let us seize the opportunity of this moment—the certainty of an agreement that fixes the problems we face, commands broad support and consensus and offers us, at last, the freedom to move forward together. That is what the people of Northern Ireland deserve; that is what the Windsor framework delivers. As a Conservative, a Brexiteer and a Unionist, I believe passionately, with my head and my heart, that this is the right way forward—right for Northern Ireland, right for our United Kingdom. I commend it to this House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I want to make sure we get everybody in—this is a very important day. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the briefing that I was given earlier this afternoon.
I would like to start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Betty Boothroyd. As Speaker of this House, she was at the forefront of a generation who smashed the glass ceiling for female politicians. She was an inspirational woman and a dedicated and devoted public servant who will be missed by all who knew her. My thoughts and the thoughts of the whole House are with her very many friends and family.
The Good Friday agreement and the peace and prosperity that it brought to Northern Ireland are among the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government, but we in the Labour party have always recognised that this achievement does not belong principally to us. It belongs to the people of Northern Ireland, who, over a quarter of a century, have overcome differences that once seemed insurmountable and have shown that they can work together to build a better future for themselves and for the generations to come.
I had the privilege of working for a number of years with the Police Service of Northern Ireland so that it could serve and represent both communities, but it is the police officers themselves who carried out that change. They helped to make the peace of the Good Friday agreement stick. I was deeply saddened by the shooting of DCI John Caldwell. Our thoughts and the thoughts of the whole House are with him, his family and his colleagues. DCI Caldwell’s shooting is a reminder that we must continue to strive for peace, and that we in the House must take our obligations under the Good Friday agreement and to the people of Northern Ireland as seriously as they do. It is in that spirit that I have made it clear for some time that if the Prime Minister were to get an agreement with the EU, and if that agreement were in the interest of this country and Northern Ireland, Labour would support it, and we will stick to our word. We will not snipe, we will not seek to play political games, and when the Prime Minister puts this deal forward for a vote, Labour will support it and vote for it.
The protocol will never be perfect—it is a compromise—but I have always been clear about the fact that if implemented correctly, it is an agreement that can work in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. Now that it has been agreed, we all have an obligation to make it work. The moral core of the Good Friday agreement is simple. All people of Northern Ireland have the right to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British or both, and freely participating in the economic life of the UK or the Republic of Ireland is an essential part of that. That is why it is good that the deal before us will see fewer unnecessary checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The red and green lanes proposal is a good one. It will make life easier for business, and it will enable the people of Northern Ireland to participate more freely in the economic life of the UK. It has our full support. The protocol will continue to ensure that there is no physical border on the island of Ireland. That is essential because, as we all know, any physical border would be a source of tension—a physical manifestation of new barriers between communities in Northern Ireland and the economic life in the Republic.
This agreement will allow us to move forward as a country, rather than being locked in endless disputes with our allies. It will improve our diplomatic standing, which has been damaged by the Government’s previous threats to break international law. I am encouraged that the Democratic Unionist party has said it will look carefully at the measures it contains. However, we must be honest: this comes with trade-offs. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) told the people of Northern Ireland that his protocol meant no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind on goods crossing the Irish sea after Brexit. That was absolute nonsense. It was a point-blank refusal to engage with Unionists in Northern Ireland in good faith, let  alone take their concerns seriously, and it inevitably contributed to the collapse of power sharing in Northern Ireland. I have to say that as the Prime Minister listed all the problems with the protocol, I did rather wonder whether he had forgotten who had negotiated it.
I urge the Prime Minister, when presenting what this agreement will mean in practice—and it will take time for everyone to read it and carefully consider it—to be utterly unlike his predecessor. I say to him, “Do not pretend that the deal is something it is not. Where there are trade-offs to be made, argue the case for them. Treat Unionists with the respect of frank honesty, not the contempt of bluster.”
In this year of the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, we must once again embrace compromise and put division behind us. This deal is not perfect, but because we recognise that the UK agreed to the protocol and has an obligation to make it work, because we recognise that for the protocol to work there will inevitably be trade-offs, and because we always recognise that peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland are hard won, Labour will support the Windsor framework. I hope that in the coming days others will come to support the agreement in the same spirit, and will join Labour in voting to make the protocol work, in voting to face the future, and in voting for country before party.

Rishi Sunak: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments and his support. I agree with the substance of what he has said. I would just say to him that at this moment in time, the right thing for all of us to do is not to look back, but to look forward to the brighter future that we can see for Northern Ireland.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked of trade-offs, but I would talk of balance, and the delicate balance inherent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is important that we respect the aspirations and identities of all communities. That is what the protocol had unbalanced, and that is what the Windsor framework restores. I do believe, hand on heart, that the changes we have achieved and the framework we now have in place will enable balance to be restored to the people of Northern Ireland. This framework puts them in control of their destiny, it secures their place in the Union and it safeguards their sovereignty, and on that basis I hope we can look forward to a brighter future for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Theresa May: Let me first associate myself with the remarks made by both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about Baroness Boothroyd—an outstanding Speaker—and about DCI John Caldwell.
The Northern Ireland protocol, negotiated and signed by the Government in December 2019, adopted the European Union’s preferred proposal of a border down the Irish sea. I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Foreign Secretary and all their teams, on all the work they have done to achieve this negotiated settlement, which will make a huge difference. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best move now is for everyone, across the House, to support the settlement, because that is in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend, and join her in paying tribute to the Northern Ireland and Foreign Secretaries. They deserve enormous credit for  the framework that we have achieved today. I also pay tribute to her for all her work on this topic over the years. She has kept safeguarding the Union at the top of her mind throughout, and I agree with her: what should be at the top of all our minds at this moment are the people of Northern Ireland and what is in their interests. I hope that when people have the time and space to consider the Windsor framework, they will see that this is the best way in which to move forward and build that better future in Northern Ireland.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson—sorry, leader.

Stephen Flynn: I think I am the group leader, but I will take “spokesperson” as well.
Glass ceilings are there to be broken. Betty Boothroyd did not just break a glass ceiling; she shattered that glass ceiling. In that regard, she has my utmost respect, and my thoughts and condolences are with her family members. My thoughts are also with the police officer in Northern Ireland who was so tragically and appallingly shot in recent days, and I join Members on both sides of the House in saying that I sincerely hope he is able to make a recovery.
Let me turn to the agreement reached today. One would be forgiven for thinking, on the basis of what the Prime Minister has said—in the Chamber and, indeed, earlier today—that this had absolutely nothing to do with him: that all those problems were nothing to do with the Conservative party or with him as a Government Minister. So what happened a couple of years ago? Were they simply being opportunistic when they put this in place? Were they incompetent when they put this in place? Or were they simply duped into believing that something was oven-ready when it clearly was not? I have no doubt that the public will draw their own conclusions.
Broadly speaking, however, I am fully supportive of the agreement, for three simple reasons—three simple and interwoven reasons. It seeks to safeguard peace in Northern Ireland, something that we all know is incredibly important; it seeks to protect the Good Friday agreement, which I think everyone in the Chamber would agree is incredibly important; and, of course, it seeks to provide a pathway back to the ability of the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland to sit. It is not for me to pontificate about democracy in Northern Ireland, but I sincerely hope that those parties involved will be able to come to an agreeable conclusion, and I know that the Prime Minister shares my view in that regard.
But while all of that is good, we cannot and should not forget the damage that has been done by leaving the European Union. Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster —[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not have to believe me; what they should do is read the reports of the Office for Budget Responsibility, which outlined that there would be a 4% hit to GDP as a result of Brexit. Or perhaps they should reflect on the fact that the trade deficit between the UK and the EU is at its highest level on record. Perhaps they could listen to the private sector and to those businesses that are unable to trade, unable to get the workforce they require and unable to get the goods they need. Or perhaps they could listen to the public sector, which is facing severe problems as well, many of  which are driven by workforce shortages. Indeed, many of problems that face all our NHSs across these isles come from the fact that we have significant staff shortages in social care. Each and every one of those points is a result of the disaster that has been leaving the European Union, and I find it astonishing that we have a situation where the leader of the Labour party and the leader of the Conservative party are hand in glove when it comes to their position on Brexit.
Finally, we have heard the Prime Minister speak at length about the integrity of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it was reflected upon by the Leader of the Opposition as well. There might be a scintilla of truth in that argument, but what this deal does not do is create parity for the nations of these isles. I see the Northern Ireland Minister sitting there; he was very positive about this in an interview earlier on. This deal means that businesses in Northern Ireland have access to the single market, whereas businesses in Scotland do not. I do not begrudge that to the people and businesses of Northern Ireland, but I regret that Scotland does not have those same opportunities. On that point, can the Prime Minister clarify why Scotland is at a significant disadvantage in that regard on his watch? Does he not agree that the only way for Scotland to have access to the single market and the customs union, and the only way for Scotland to rejoin the European Union, is to rid itself of Westminster?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the new agreement that we struck today, the Windsor framework, and in particular for his acknowledgement of the sovereignty that it provides for the people of Northern Ireland to have a say in their own destiny. That is something that was asked for and something that has been delivered. He is also right to say that it is not for any of us to opine, and we will give the parties and communities in Northern Ireland the space and time they need to consider the detail of the Windsor framework. More broadly, without engaging in the broader debate that he raises, I am a passionate Unionist. I will always believe that our Union is stronger when we are together, and that Scotland, alongside Northern Ireland and Wales, will always be part of what makes this country great. We will fight, day in and day out, to protect that Union.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House.

Peter Bottomley: The Leader of the Opposition helpfully said that people in Northern Ireland might regard themselves as Irish, as British or as British and Irish. A large number would also describe themselves as Northern Irish. The beginning of the framework document states:
“The Northern Ireland Protocol has been the source of acute political, economic and societal difficulties”,
and the last sentence talks about the
“shared desire for a positive…relationship”.
Constituents will say that this agreement resolves some of the known problems about the protocol and some of the ones that have become obvious since then. It is about 50 years since a Unionist MP was a Minister in the UK Government. I hope that this agreement makes it possible for that to happen again.

Rishi Sunak: I thank the Father of the House for his support and his observations. He is right about the agreement that we have struck. It resolves the problems that we know about, but it also puts in place structures and mechanisms to resolve anything else that might come down the line, because it is important that there is close dialogue not just with the European Union but with communities and businesses in Northern Ireland. That is something that they have asked for, and as a result of this agreement, they will have new engagement and new ways to make their voices heard, so that we can continue to make sure that we do the best for them and their communities in Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, I should like to add our voice in tribute to the late Betty Boothroyd, who was my first Speaker and a wonderful woman who brought so much to this House. I also want to add our sympathy to the family of DCI Caldwell. He continues to be in our prayers. I was pleased to stand with the other leaders and with the Chief Constable in Belfast on Friday and to be clear that the people who perpetrated this evil have no place in the future of Northern Ireland.
I believe that our judgment and principled position in opposing the protocol in Parliament and at Stormont have been vindicated. Undoubtedly, it is now recognised that the protocol does not work. When others said that there could be no renegotiation and no change, it was our determination that proved what could be achieved. I would like to thank the Prime Minister and his predecessors for their work and engagement to date on this issue. In broad terms, it is clear that significant progress has been secured across a number of areas, but we also recognise that there remain key issues of concern. For example, there can be no disguising the fact that in some sectors of our economy in Northern Ireland, EU law remains applicable in our part of the United Kingdom.
My party will want to study the detail of what has been published today as well as examining the legal text, the political declaration and the Government’s Command Paper. Where necessary, we stand ready to engage with the Government in order to seek further clarification, reworking or change as required. My party will now assess all the proposed outcomes and arrangements against our seven tests, outlined in our 2022 Assembly election manifesto, to determine whether what has been published meets those tests and whether it respects and restores Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom.
In this regard, I agree with the Prime Minister that the issue of sovereignty is crucial. Article 6 of the Act of Union—the very basis of the Union itself, the economic union of the United Kingdom—was seriously undermined by the Northern Ireland protocol and its implementation, and that needs to be resolved. Some £65 billion of the £77 billion of goods manufactured in Northern Ireland are sold within the United Kingdom: we sell the overwhelming majority of what we produce within our own internal market. I want an assurance from the Prime Minister that not just now but in the future the Government of the United Kingdom will protect Northern Ireland’s place within that internal market and not allow the application of EU law to put barriers in the way of our ability to trade with the rest of our own country.

Rishi Sunak: First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive engagement that I have had with him and members of his team over recent time? As I said earlier, I have tried hard to listen, in particular to the concerns of the elected representatives of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, because I know that it is they who have had the most concerns over the protocol. At the forefront of my mind throughout all the negotiations has been resolving the issues that those communities are grappling with, which they have raised with me and the Government. I believe very strongly that the Windsor framework does resolve those issues, but I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman and his party, and other Unionist communities, will want to take the time to consider the detail. I respect that, and we will give them the time and space to consider that and stand ready to answer any questions and provide any clarifications.
I also can tell the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the objectives that he and others have set out, that I believe the Windsor framework will ensure the free flow of trade within our United Kingdom internal market, including unfettered access for Northern Ireland producers to the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe it secures Northern Ireland’s place in the Union and makes sure that citizens and businesses can benefit in the same way everywhere across the United Kingdom.
Lastly, as the right hon. Gentleman has rightly highlighted to me on previous occasions, it ensures and safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland so that they are in control of their destiny. I believe what we have achieved today provides a basis for the parties in Northern Ireland to consider the detail and hopefully move forward so that together we can build a better future for Northern Ireland. I look forward to doing that with him.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

Simon Hoare: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues have strained every sinew these last weeks and months to arrive at today’s position. They are to be congratulated. The agreement demonstrates that, when committed minds do politics seriously, serious and beneficial outcomes can be delivered for the benefit of all in our country.
While agreeing entirely with my right hon. Friend that the parties, particularly those in Northern Ireland, need the time and space to study the detail and to work out all the implications for those in Northern Ireland, Northern Irish business wants and the good people of Northern Ireland most certainly deserve quick certainty. If there are to be votes in this place on any element of the Windsor framework, as announced today, will he commit to ensuring they take place speedily in order to ensure certainty and peace of mind for all who either live in Northern Ireland or who wish Northern Ireland well?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend knows this subject well, and he is rightly passionate about it. I thank him for all the valuable work that he and his colleagues have done over the years as we considered and concluded these negotiations.
As I said earlier, Parliament will of course have its say and there will be a vote, but we need to do that at the appropriate time in order to give people the time and space to consider the detail. My hon. Friend makes an important point that the benefit of this framework and agreement is that it can start to provide that certainty and those benefits to the people and communities of Northern Ireland very soon. That is why we have concluded these negotiations and want to start delivering the benefits for people on the ground as quickly as we can.

Edward Davey: I join others in paying tribute to our late, great Speaker, Betty Boothroyd. Like me, Mr Speaker, I am sure you remember with fondness when you caught Speaker Boothroyd’s eye and when she brought you to order.
I also send my party’s thoughts and prayers to DCI John Caldwell and his family and thank him for his courage and bravery.
Like others, the Liberal Democrats will now closely study this deal, but I welcome the spirit of partnership and compromise between the UK Government and the European Union in the formation of the Windsor agreement. What consultation will the Prime Minister now undertake with all of Northern Ireland’s political parties, including the Alliance party, on the Stormont brake? Can he reassure us that the operation of the Stormont brake will not undermine the economic stability and certainty or the political stability so desperately needed in Northern Ireland?

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will continue to engage with all parties and communities in Northern Ireland—that is the right way to proceed—particularly with regard to the operation of the brake. That is set out in the Command Paper, and we look forward to discussing it, and how to codify it, with the Executive, the Assembly and the political parties as we move forward. That is something we are very happy to do.
Just so the right hon. Gentleman is clear, the Stormont brake is based on an existing Good Friday agreement mechanism. The petition of concern mechanism is well established in Northern Ireland as a cross-community safeguard, which is why we have chosen it as the appropriate mechanism for this particular purpose. As I say, we will continue to engage with all parties to make sure we get it absolutely right.

Julian Smith: I join the tributes to John Caldwell, who was shot in front of his son while loading footballs into his car after training kids at a football match in Omagh last week.
I welcome the Windsor agreement and the Windsor framework, and I believe today marks a critical moment in ending three years of instability that has affected communities throughout this most fragile part of our country. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and his team for all they have done to secure this. Does he agree that we now need to give the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and all the other Northern Ireland parties the time, space and encouragement to restore power sharing and to ensure that political decision-making in Northern Ireland can start as soon as possible?

Rishi Sunak: I pay tribute to my constituency neighbour not just for the job he did as Northern Ireland Secretary but for his continued passion and devotion to the people of Northern Ireland. I also thank him personally for the support and advice he has given to me in helping us reach the framework today. I wholeheartedly agree with him, and I hope we can move forward with time and space to build a better future for the people of Northern Ireland. I know that is what he wants to see, and I join him in wanting to see it. We stand ready to work with everyone to bring about that outcome.

Hilary Benn: I congratulate the negotiators on this very significant achievement. I also congratulate the Prime Minister on his statement, in which he was so frank about the manifest failings of the original Northern Ireland protocol negotiated and signed by his predecessor, which made today’s deal so necessary. Does he agree that the European Union has moved a long way in these negotiations? And does he agree that everyone in this House looks forward, as soon as possible, to the restoration of power sharing in Northern Ireland, because that is in the best interests of the people of that part of our United Kingdom?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. Gentleman is right that we have had constructive and good negotiations with the European Union, and I pay tribute to President Ursula von der Leyen for the leadership and vision she has demonstrated in trying to find a way through to help us resolve these issues. She and her team deserve enormous credit for displaying that vision, leadership and creativity. I wholeheartedly agree that the people of Northern Ireland need and deserve their institutions to be up and running. I think that is something on which all of us in this House agree, and we all want to see it happen as soon as practically possible.

David Davis: I start by unreservedly congratulating my right hon. Friend on what seems to be a spectacular negotiating success. With the Windsor framework, he has succeeded in delivering a deal that eliminates the issues of the Irish sea border and addresses the practical issues in Northern Ireland on food, pets, plants, parcels, medicine regulations and tax rules. Above all, it introduces the extraordinary mechanism of the Stormont brake. I am unaware of any such mechanism in any international agreement, and it seems to me to be a brilliant piece of negotiating insight and imagination. As we do not all know the detail, can he explain to the House exactly how this mechanism will work and what its limitations will be?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his warm words, which mean a lot coming from a Brexiteer with such long-standing credentials. As someone who has done the job, he knows how difficult these things are, so it means a lot to me and the Government to have his support, for which I thank him.
The brake will work on the basis of the petition of concern mechanism. That mechanism is part of the Good Friday agreement institutional framework, which is why we believe it is the right cross-community safeguard to use. It will be applied to the goods rules in annex 2 of the protocol that were the main cause of concern. It is there for those rules that cause significant and lasting damage and change to the everyday lives of ordinary  people in Northern Ireland. Once the emergency brake is pulled, it will give the UK Government a veto. It is a very powerful cross-community safeguard that ensures sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is part of why this agreement is the right one for the people of Northern Ireland.

Colum Eastwood: I associate myself with the remarks about Betty Boothroyd, and I join colleagues, particularly my colleagues from Northern Ireland, in sending our love and support to the Caldwell family and every single PSNI officer in uniform today standing up for our peace and democracy.
Although we have some concerns, particularly on the Stormont brake—we will study the detail of this as we go—we are happy that things seem to have moved today. There has been an awful lot of talk, particularly today and in recent months, about the concerns of the DUP and the Unionist community. It is important to remember that the majority of people in Northern Ireland opposed Brexit and want to see the benefits of dual market access properly utilised. Does the Prime Minister agree it is important that his Government now support that dual market access and promote it to international investors?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his engagement with the Secretary of State and myself in recent weeks. He is right: there is a balance to be struck, and the Good Friday agreement is about respecting that balance—it is about the aspirations and identities of all communities in Northern Ireland. That is what we have sought to achieve with the Windsor framework. As I outlined, something we have heard loud and clear from businesses in Northern Ireland is that they value their access to the single market and they value, as all of us do, not having a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That is something we have had to bear in mind as we considered these negotiations, but I believe we have struck the right balance and the framework means that this agreement can command the support and consent of communities right across the spectrum in Northern Ireland. I look forward to working with him and his party to deliver it.

Brandon Lewis: May I, too, send my best wishes to, and align myself with the comments of others about, detective chief inspector John Caldwell? What happened is a stark reminder of the courageous and special work that all PSNI officers do every day that they are working, to keep all people in Northern Ireland safe. We owe them all a great debt for that work.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my Front-Bench colleagues on the phenomenal focus they are putting on ensuring that we can secure a deal that, as I know we all hope, can restore power sharing in Stormont. Getting back to having good governance in Northern Ireland by elected representatives in Northern Ireland is key for people there.
Another key area for the citizens of Northern Ireland is access to goods, as my right hon. Friend has rightly outlined. Will he confirm for the House that in this deal we will be able to secure the free flow of trade not only for Northern Ireland businesses into Great Britain, but for Great British businesses into Northern Ireland?  Regulations were preventing some goods from moving, and it is great to know that the Great Yarmouth banger will be able to get back on the supermarket shelves, where required, in Northern Ireland. However, for many businesses it was the administrative burden of moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, not just the regulatory one, that needed to be removed in order to allow them to see this as an economic benefit and therefore protect the structural integrity of the UK internal market.

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for the work he did on this topic in his role as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It was invaluable in paving the way for my colleagues and I to take forward that work and bring it to a successful conclusion today. He is right to highlight the administrative burden of moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. I am confident that with the new green lane, based on using existing ordinary commercial data and data sharing, in place of the bureaucratic customs arrangements that were there hitherto, we have taken an enormous step forward. It delivers what businesses have asked for. We have worked closely with the business community in Northern Ireland to deliver it, and I am confident that as they study the detail, they will see that it provides that smooth flow of their goods around the United Kingdom, as it should be, and ensures Northern Ireland’s place in our UK internal market.

George Howarth: I welcome the fact that the document contains a number of references to the need for “cross-community support”, and the Prime Minister has repeated that phrase a number of times in his statement and in responses. He will be aware that over the past 25 years one significant development has been the number of people who identify themselves as Northern Irish, as distinct from either British or Irish. Will he give the House some indication of how he is going to gauge the opinion of that 20% of the population who identify themselves in that way but might not necessarily be represented by a political party?

Rishi Sunak: My approach, and indeed that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is to engage with all communities, all parties and all business groups in Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is about balance. It is about respecting the delicate balance that exists in Northern Ireland—that was at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As I think the right hon. Gentleman has seen, we have gone out of our way to talk to and listen to everybody, respecting, of course, the particular concerns of the Unionist community. But this framework, this agreement, I believe gets that balance right. It respects the aspirations and identities of all communities in Northern Ireland, which is why I believe it is the right way forward.

Bill Cash: My right hon. Friend will know that, as ever, the devil lies in the detail of the papers that have been published this afternoon. May I seek his assurance that the Government will respond to the democratically correct questions that naturally arise on the substance and procedures involved? In particular, I am thinking about the making of EU laws and the European Court; the Joint Committee and its procedures; and the Stormont brake, not to mention the whole  context of sovereignty in this entire process under section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020? Would he also be good enough to indicate how long a timeline he is proposing for the questions and answers that will be required, and how long that might take?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for the engagement he has had, with me in particular, and the advice he has provided. Section 38 of that Act was a testament to him, and it reasserts the sovereignty of this Parliament in matters of international law and he was right to do that. I hope we can strengthen that provision as we consider how best to make sure we protect the Act of Union and Northern Ireland’s place in it. As for questions, I am happy to move as quickly as he is able to provide the questions for me and I look forward to engaging in that dialogue with him.

Stephen Farry: My party can give a broad welcome to this agreement. There are some positives in it that address a range of challenges that have been clear for some time. However, for us, the key test is the preservation of Northern Ireland’s dual market access. In that regard, my party has massive concerns about this potential Stormont brake. Does the Prime Minister understand that there are real dangers that this process could add more instability into the Assembly, and may I stress to him that the petition of concern is controversial, given its abuse in the past? This also creates uncertainty for businesses regarding ongoing single market rules, particularly with a view to investment into Northern Ireland. So will he meet our party to discuss this in more detail in order to clarify what is potentially being proposed?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the engagement that he and his colleagues have had with me and the Secretary of State in recent weeks, which has been helpful. Of course, I can assure him that I look forward to talking to him again very soon to explain the Windsor framework in detail. He makes a good point: many people, communities and business in Northern Ireland value their access to the European Union single market and rightly value not having a hard border on the island of Ireland. We have strived to protect that in this agreement while ensuring Northern Ireland’s place in our Union and protecting and safeguarding its sovereignty. I believe that the Windsor framework does get that balance right and I look forward to having that conversation with him.

Mike Penning: Let me say at the outset that our thoughts and prayers are with the police officer who was attacked by people calling themselves the “New IRA”. There is nothing new about people who are callous murderers or attempted murderers; these people are still the IRA and they always will be, as they were in the days when I served in the Province.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on negotiating this excellent agreement. Part of the reason why the EU has moved was perhaps the threat of the Bill coming through this House. Clearly, the EU has woken up and smelt the coffee, realising how bad this was going to be for it and for the Republic of Ireland. Does he think that was part of the reason why he got such an excellent deal with the EU?

Rishi Sunak: I am sure that the Bill did create the conditions for us to have the negotiation that we did, but, as the Government were clear about and said at the time, our preference was always a negotiated outcome if one was available. Today, we have achieved a negotiated outcome that provides the certainty and stability that we need, and resolves the issues we set out to resolve. It safeguards Northern Ireland’s sovereignty, protects its place in the Union, and guarantees and provides for the free flow of trade around the UK internal market. It is because we now have the Windsor framework, this new agreement, that we no longer need the Bill and we will no longer proceed with it. This agreement can start bringing benefit to the people of Northern Ireland as quickly as possible.

Karin Smyth: As chair of the all-party group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain, I believe that, over the past few years, the state of the relationship between London and Dublin has been of great concern to many of us and to the hundreds of workers in this place who are Irish or of Irish origin. We need to look to the future and to learn from what we see. The Prime Minister talks about the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. That includes strands 2 and 3, which, if fully implemented, offer us great potential to embed some of this agreement and to look to the future. Will he now commit his party—other Members here can join in—to making sure that the operations of strands 2 and 3 and our co-operation with the Irish Government go forward in a much better way?

Rishi Sunak: The Government are committed to all strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I have talked a lot about balance and about making sure that we get that balance right. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), for the incredible job that they have done not just with the agreement, but, in particular, in addressing the issue that the hon. Lady has just raised. I also wish to put on record my thanks to the Irish Government for the role they have played and the support they have provided us throughout this process. We look forward to continued, positive and constructive dialogue with them. That is what my colleagues and I will do as we make sure that we capitalise on all strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Andrea Leadsom: Northern Ireland has a precious and integral place in the United Kingdom. It certainly seems to me, reflecting back over the past five years, that if this deal had been on the table at any point in that time, those of us who are Brexiteers, those of us who are remainers and those of us who are Unionists would have jumped on it. I heartily congratulate the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State on their excellent work and negotiation. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that, in his view, this Windsor agreement now fully restores the Act of Union and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend particularly for her support given her long-standing credentials in this area and the passion with which she believes in our Union. I am grateful to have her support.  I can give her that assurance: this absolutely does meet the requirements and is consistent with the Act of Union and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We have worked very hard to get to an outcome that does, and I am really pleased that the Windsor framework delivers for her and for everyone else in Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson: I welcome the 18-minute confession that the Prime Minister undertook about the damage that the protocol, which his Government signed, has done to Northern Ireland. May I remind him that, although he talks about 1,700 pages of EU law being removed from Northern Ireland, hundreds of thousands of pages will still remain? Border posts are still being planned, and the Prime Minister has admitted that future EU laws will apply to Northern Ireland unless, under paragraph 52, his Government decide not to proceed with law changes for the United Kingdom as a whole, or he vetoes EU proposals in a Joint Committee. Can he understand why we do not have confidence in that and why we still fear that our position within the United Kingdom will not be restored by this agreement?

Rishi Sunak: As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, the border posts are there to deal with checks in the red lane. That was something that was always envisaged. It is something that we always said that we would do. It is right that people should not be able to try to smuggle goods into the Republic of Ireland via Northern Ireland. That is why those posts, those inspection facilities, are there. The investment in them is to make sure that we can do those checks properly, as we assured the European Union that we would do. Part of having a functioning green lane is having enforcement of the red lane.
To his broader point about EU law, less than 3% of EU law applies in Northern Ireland. It applies with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. As he knows, the consent vote next year allows them to remove all of those laws and to have a new approach, but it is there because, as we have heard, there is a balance to be struck, and Northern Ireland’s communities and businesses value not having a border on the island of Ireland. They value their access to the single market. We are in a position where we have the minimum amount of law required to fulfil that purpose. I believe sovereignty is important. I believe that those laws and the new ones that come through should come through only with the consent and oversight of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why the Stormont brake is so powerful: it puts power in the hands of the Assembly, of him and his colleagues, to decide what is best for Northern Ireland. That is what sovereignty means to me. It means giving Stormont the ability to say no, and I hope that he will give this framework the time and consideration that it deserves.

Mark Francois: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for publishing both the White Paper and the legal text on the same day, which will materially assist the whole House. As a former Chancellor, he knows well that, on Budget day, the Government put a good gloss on whatever they are putting to the public. We then have to read through the Red Book to check on the fine detail. He has worked very hard on this agreement, so can he assure me and the whole House that when we go through the Red Book—or, in this instance, the detailed legal  text—we will not find any nasty surprises that will materially undermine the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I am pleased that we were able to publish all the documentation. I know that that was important not just to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), but to other colleagues as well. It is the right thing to do and, as I have said, I wish to give everybody the time and the space to consider the detail of the Windsor framework. I believe that it meets the objectives that we set out to achieve: it provides for the free flow of goods within the United Kingdom; it ensures Northern Ireland’s place in our Union; and it safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. I look forward to engaging with him and his colleagues over the coming days to answer his questions and provide any clarifications. I am confident that, when he goes through the detail, he will see that this is a good agreement. It is the right agreement for Northern Ireland and for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is a way for our United Kingdom to move forward together.

Stella Creasy: May I associate myself with the comments and sentiments that have been expressed to the families of Betty Boothroyd and DCI Caldwell?
The people of Northern Ireland have been through so much. This is a welcome opportunity to make progress, but, as the Prime Minister no doubt knows, clearing up the mess that other people make can be a never-ending job. The House of Lords is currently debating a Bill that will delete more than 60 areas of regulation that are not covered by the protocol. That is a process that the EU has already said will start a trade war if it goes through and that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission says undermines the Good Friday agreement. It covers issues such as electrical safety, food standards and farming standards. In order to support what he has presented to the House today, will the Prime Minister confirm that all remaining retained EU legislation will be retained in Northern Ireland itself, using the powers that he has and that Stormont currently cannot exercise? If he does not, how can anybody have confidence that we will avoid the regulatory divergence and that trade war which could undermine everything he has presented today?

Rishi Sunak: The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is passing separately to these arrangements, but these arrangements provide for the appropriate sovereignty in Northern Ireland for the Stormont Assembly to have that say. It is more than a say; it is an ability for the Assembly to block new EU goods laws as they come down the pipe if Assembly Members are not happy with them. As the hon. Lady will see in the Command Paper, we have also committed to a range of other things to ensure that we protect against trade and regulatory divergence, including dialogue with businesses in Northern Ireland and also with the European Union. As she studies the detail, hopefully she will be reassured that we have protected properly against that.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s comments on Betty Boothroyd, who was my first Speaker when I arrived here—she will be greatly missed—and also his comments on the brutal attack on DCI Caldwell?
I commend my right hon. Friend and his team for their diligence and hard work in pursuing this matter regardless of the obstacles that lie in their way, including the reluctance of the EU to admit anything about the problems that have been taking place. For me, having served in Northern Ireland and lost friends who never came back from Northern Ireland, the restoration of the Good Friday agreement is, at the end of the day, the No.1 item. However, when I was looking through the details, I noticed that the Stormont brake is not quite as defined as it might be. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could clear this up. One phrase says that it can be used only if there is
“significant impact specific to everyday life”.
Who makes that decision as to what is significant? Secondly, can the EU demand countermeasures if the brake is deployed?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and pay tribute to his service. I know that this is a topic that he rightly cares about.
I am happy to clarify. It is for us to make the determination whether the threshold has been met. It is right that there is a threshold. The ability to block new law is a serious mechanism and it should not be used for trivial reasons. It should be used for those new laws that have a significant and lasting impact on the everyday lives of people in Northern Ireland. That is the right trigger, and it is one that we are in control of deciding. It is equally appropriate that if we do that, the EU will have the right to take appropriate countermeasures. That is there in black and white. Obviously, those have to be proportionate. I do not think that anyone could disagree with that. This is a very powerful mechanism, and I am pleased that we were able to reach resolution on it, because, as I have said, it ensures that we have restored sovereignty to the people of Northern Ireland.

Liz Saville-Roberts: There is, of course, much to welcome in today’s statement, but I must press the Prime Minister on a specific point. In his statement, he casually mentioned the burdens on shipments between Holyhead and Dublin. He failed to mention that, pre-Brexit, about 30% of all trade through the port went on to Northern Ireland from Dublin. That trade is reorientating as we speak, in real time, aggravating the already devastating impact of Brexit on the port of Holyhead. Can the Prime Minister clarify whether this new agreement will guarantee seamless trade between Northern Ireland and Wales via Dublin? If not, will he recognise that green lanes will disadvantage Welsh ports?

Rishi Sunak: This is about ensuring the free flow of goods within our United Kingdom; that is what the green lane is there to do. It was always going to be the case after we left the European Union that sending things to the European Union from the UK would be different. What this agreement is about is prioritising trade within the United Kingdom’s internal market, and the green lane that we have delivered through this framework does exactly that.

John Redwood: Who will decide which EU laws will apply in Northern Ireland, and on what basis will they make that decision?

Rishi Sunak: Going forward, when the Executive are up and running, as I hope very much they will be, it will be for the Assembly in Northern Ireland to decide. For those goods rules in annex 2, which are the ones of most concern, the Stormont brake will apply. There will be a process of scrutiny and if 30 MLAs from two parties use the petition of concern mechanism to trigger the Stormont brake, that will allow the UK Government to veto the goods rules. That is why this is important: it will be the institutions of Northern Ireland that will get to make that decision.

Ian Paisley Jnr: May I, too, add my sincere comments to those of others on the attempted murder of DCI Caldwell? He and his family are known personally to me. I thank the Prime Minister for his comments. I hope, in fact, that the Sovereign will make a statement about the attempted murder of a police officer in Northern Ireland. I think that would be appropriate and fitting.
The Prime Minister has quite rightly indicated that trade is important to all of our United Kingdom. Paragraph 47 of the framework focuses on veterinary medicine for all our animals. Our agrifood sector is huge. It feeds multiples of millions of people here in GB, but half of the product lines are at risk. Paragraph 47 states:
“As part of the agreement, we have put in place a grace period”,
but it will expire in less than a year and a half. Prime Minister, that is utterly useless for our agricultural sector. That will actually make it more difficult for our farm businesses. Also, if we move any livestock from County Antrim to Ayrshire and fail to sell them at the marts, we will have to leave them there for at least six months. That has not been addressed. If the Prime Minister were to move cattle from Yorkshire to Lancashire and was told that they would have to stay in Lancashire for six months, he would not be amused. Our farmers in Northern Ireland are not amused. It is our single largest trade. Will these issues be fixed, or is this a failed process already?

Rishi Sunak: I join the hon. Gentleman in supporting our farmers, whether in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in Yorkshire. Actually, the agreement we have reached on veterinary medicines lasts three years, until the end of 2025, which provides us with the time and space to agree a more permanent solution with the European Union. As today’s framework demonstrates, we are more than capable of doing that, as we have resolved all the other issues that were in front of us.
I also point the hon. Gentleman to the solution that we have reached on human medicines, which I think everyone will agree are vital, where we have achieved a form of dual regulation, which ensures the full availability of medicines across the entire United Kingdom, with the UK regulatory authorities being the ones in charge. I think that that is what he should look to, alongside all the other things we have solved today, to have confidence that between now and three years’ time, in 2025, we will put a permanent footing for vet medicines on the table.

Sajid Javid: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and commend him and his entire team on what they have achieved. He seems to have won some jaw-dropping concessions from the EU without giving anything in return.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that alongside the benefits that this agreement will bring for the people of Northern Ireland, it can form the basis of further co-operation with our EU friends on issues that will matter to the entire United Kingdom, including trade and investment, science and illegal migration?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support and also for his invaluable advice over the past few weeks. I agree with him. He is right to highlight illegal migration in particular, as well as economic co-operation. That is a priority for this Government, as we have demonstrated. The Home Secretary is working with the French and that co-operation is yielding benefits. We continue to want to do more of that, and I know that he will support those efforts.

Claire Hanna: I echo the words of solidarity from many across the House for the Caldwell family and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and the rejection of extremist throwbacks; the people of our region are sick and tired of them.
We all want simpler post-Brexit trading arrangements, so we sincerely welcome this progress and commend the Prime Minister on taking a much more constructive approach than his predecessors. I reiterate that there are many political outlooks in Northern Ireland and it is a fact that most people, most parties and most business representatives value our single market access, our high food standards and our 1998 agreement. So that we can maintain the huge opportunity of the protocol, will the Prime Minister commit his Government to championing loudly our unique dual market access, working to prevent vexatious use of the Stormont brake, and keeping a focus on restoration of the Stormont Executive, to allow those who genuinely believe in democracy and consensus to get back to serving the people they were elected to serve?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Lady for her support and for the way in which she and her colleague the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) have engaged with me and the Secretary of State over recent weeks. We appreciate it and will continue to do it. She makes a really important point. Northern Ireland is in the unique position, not just in the United Kingdom but in the entire continent of Europe, of having privileged access to two markets. As we look forward, we all want to see greater prosperity and opportunity and more growth in Northern Ireland. We can build on this framework to deliver more investment and jobs. That is the prize available to us. I know that my colleagues are determined to work with all businesses and parties in Northern Ireland to deliver that, but the hon. Lady is right that the precondition for that is a functioning Executive, and we continue to work very hard to see that come about.

Liam Fox: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his whole negotiating team, whose quiet confidence and competence have led us to an agreement that, frankly, many people would not have thought possible? Will he say something specific about the role of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the Joint Committee, which will be key to boosting transparency and accountability? In general terms, I hope that this new tendency to under-promise and over-deliver becomes the hallmark of the whole Government.

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support, which means a lot to me because the topic of Brexit is something that he has thought and done a lot about over the years. He is absolutely right. There was a fair feeling among communities, parties and businesses in Northern Ireland that there simply was not enough engagement and representation on how arrangements were being implemented on the ground. We have fixed that with today’s framework. There are a range of new structures and mechanisms for that engagement to take place, including for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to attend sessions of the Joint Committee that concern the Windsor framework and anything else in Northern Ireland. That is a positive step forward and ensures that we will be able to make this work on the ground. He is absolutely right to highlight it.

Alison McGovern: Whatever disagreements we all have, it is good to hear the Prime Minister today paying respect to the principles and the detail of the Good Friday agreement. On our membership of the European convention on human rights, which plays such a central role in that agreement, can he confirm that under his Government, we will not leave the ECHR?

Rishi Sunak: The UK is and will remain a member of the ECHR. Today’s agreement is about the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—the hon. Lady was right to highlight it—and restoring the balance in that agreement. I am pleased that the Windsor framework restores that balance, and I thank her for her support.

Shailesh Vara: I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s comments concerning Betty Boothroyd and DCI Caldwell—we all wish him a speedy recovery.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, along with his entire negotiating team, on the massive strides that he has been able to make on this complex and difficult issue. I, for one, wish him well with this agreement. The Stormont brake is critical to the agreement. I am particularly pleased that it represents cross-party consensus. Leaving aside the current reasons why Stormont is not sitting, the Prime Minister will be aware that in the past, Stormont has not sat for other reasons used by one or other party. If that were to be the case in the future, is there a default mechanism if the Stormont brake cannot be exercised?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support and for the advice that he has provided to me and the team. This is obviously an area that he knows well from his own experience, and we very much valued his input. The Stormont brake is there to be exercised by the Stormont institution. A precondition for its use is that the institution is up and running, and that is what everyone in this House wants to see. That is another good reason to get the institutions up and running: so that sovereignty can be restored to Northern Ireland. I look forward to discussing with the parties how the brake should work, but it is important that we get the institution up and running so that people in Northern Ireland have the representation that they need. The Windsor framework delivers that ability, but it is ultimately for the people and parties in Northern Ireland to take it forward.

Jim Shannon: The right hon. Gentleman is my Prime Minister, so I say this with great respect: this is about more than just solar panels and sausages. It is crucial that the Windsor framework that he has referred to does not become the Windsor knot for us Unionists in Northern Ireland. Does he understand that any deal must include the cessation of European Court of Justice interference in UK sovereignty—in other words, the real power must lie with Westminster, not Brussels—the cessation of the state aid prohibition, and the cessation of customs protocols within the UK that are determined by Europe, and must respect the seven tests set by the DUP and supported by the majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland? The Prime Minister can strike no deal, ever, without bringing the majority of Unionists on board. Pushing another deal through this House without Unionist buy-in will offer no result other than another failed deal.

Rishi Sunak: I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes the time to study the deal in detail, and that he will see, after he has done that, that it delivers against the objectives that I set out, because it means that we can have smoothly flowing trade within our UK internal market; it means that we have protected Northern Ireland’s place in the Union; and it means that we have restored and safeguarded sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. I know that he shares those objectives; this agreement delivers them. I look forward to engaging with him and his colleagues as they study the detail, so that we can hopefully move forward together. I am confident that this is a good basis and a good agreement for the people of Northern Ireland.

Robert Buckland: My right hon. Friend and the Government are to be warmly commended for their statecraft in achieving a significant deal with significant movement from the EU, which I think now understands the primacy of strand 1 of the Good Friday agreement—north-south—as well as strand 3, east-west. Does he agree that this framework now gives a clear basis in international law for the Government to press ahead in bringing forward some of the measures in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 that were clearly in conflict with the international law obligations under the old protocol?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an excellent point. He will remember that the Government had to drop from the UKIM Bill certain provisions guaranteeing unfettered access for Northern Ireland producers into GB because they were in conflict with our international obligations under the protocol. I am pleased that today we can announce, as it states in the Command Paper, that we will legislate to put in statute unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s producers into Great Britain. That is something that the Windsor framework makes possible, and he is absolutely right to highlight it.

Joanna Cherry: The Prime Minister is to be commended for tackling one aspect of the mess left behind by his predecessor but one, but of course, we should not forget that the Prime Minister himself, and most of his colleagues, voted for that mess.
It is important to be clear about the role of the European Court of Justice in this framework. EU President Ursula von der Leyen said this afternoon that the European Court of Justice will still have the “final say” on EU law and single market issues. That is correct, isn’t it?

Rishi Sunak: Yes, as a simple matter of fact, the European Court of Justice is the final arbiter on matters of EU law. That is what the President said; she is right. That is simply the legal fact of the case.

Greg Clark: May I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s personal achievement—ably supported by the Foreign Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary—in securing this deal?
It is wholly wrong that the European Commission damaged scientific research by blocking the UK’s association with the Horizon and Copernicus programmes, and nuclear co-operation through Euratom, which have nothing whatever to do with the Northern Ireland protocol. Mrs Von der Leyen indicated earlier today that the EU had changed its mind and its position on this. Is that my right hon. Friend’s understanding? If so, scientists and engineers will welcome that. Will he implement a viable UK alternative should delays persist?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support. He is right to highlight the many areas of co-operation that we can and should have with the European Union. Science and research is one, but illegal migration, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) brought up, is another, and there is a whole range of possibilities around energy security, climate change and others.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) is also right that we should always reserve the ability to have a UK alternative to Horizon. That is something that the Government said we would do, and I know that he has fed in about how best to do that. I look forward to having that dialogue with him.

Carla Lockhart: I associate myself with the remarks about the death of Baroness Boothroyd, as well as about DCI John Caldwell, and his young son, who witnessed that horrific attack. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with them.
Much has already been said in this House about the Stormont brake and the power that it has. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Stormont brake not only has the ability to end dynamic alignment with EU law, but gives Unionists or anyone else the opportunity to meaningfully impact whether the legislation applies in Northern Ireland?

Rishi Sunak: That is exactly the point of the Stormont brake. It is based on the petition of concern mechanism—a Good Friday agreement institution—and requires 30 MLAs from two parties. If it is triggered, that provides the UK Government with a veto over that particular law. Obviously, as I have committed to, we will consult with parties in Northern Ireland and with the Assembly about how best to codify how the UK Government use that veto, but the hon. Lady can absolutely have that assurance.

Oliver Heald: May I join others in paying tribute to Betty Boothroyd, who was a wonderful Speaker and was very popular in my area, which she lived nearby?
Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK-EU Partnership Parliamentary Assembly has been supportive of the negotiations? I know that our membership in this place, in the other place and in the European Parliament will be delighted with this outcome. On the legal side, does he agree that to have put the underpinning for the protocol in international law rather than in EU law is a big step forward, as are the dispute resolution changes with arbitration and that Northern Ireland courts will decide cases rather than anyone else?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his chairmanship of the partnership from our side. He and they do valuable work, and I have been grateful—as have the Secretaries of States—for their support during this process. He makes an excellent point: it is a significant development that the Vienna convention on the law of treaties is in the political declaration. It reaffirms the international basis for the treaty. I thank him for his support of that. He is absolutely right about the importance that we should attach to it.

Chris Bryant: At the risk of adding to the sense of repetition this evening, let me say that this is all really good news—hurrah! I congratulate not only the Prime Minister but the Foreign Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary. I particularly single out the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who has shown that compromise may be costly but it pays enormous dividends. I am grateful to him and the whole team.
May I urge the Prime Minister to take up a suggestion made a few years ago by one of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is not in her seat? At the beginning of triggering article 50, she said she wanted to have an EU-UK security treaty. Given many of the issues facing the whole continent at the moment, is this not precisely the time when we should look forward to such a treaty?

Rishi Sunak: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He is absolutely right to shower praise on him. Not only has my hon. Friend been instrumental in providing the intellectual underpinning for many of the arrangements that we have adopted in the green lane, but his diplomacy—particularly with the Irish, but also with the parties in Northern Ireland—has proved invaluable in getting us to the point that we are at today, and I thank him for it.
More broadly, as we have heard previously, there are many areas of co-operation that we can have with our European friends and partners. Particularly over the last year, the co-operation with regards to Ukraine in terms of our security—whether it is sanctions policy or providing support—has been positive and invaluable. Hopefully that is something that we can build on.

Vicky Ford: As a Member of this House who was born and raised in Omagh, may I send my love and prayers to DCI John Caldwell?
In my hand I have my Omagh school notebook from when I was six. The entry for Thursday 13 December that year says:
“Last night a bomb went off in the police barracks. Gillian’s house has no glass in her windows.”
I thank my right hon. Friend for the words he said about not looking back. We must move forward and put those things behind us. May I congratulate him on an extraordinarily bespoke deal that sorts out the practicalities but also preserves the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?

Rishi Sunak: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her work but also for her comments just now, which were powerful and moving. She is right that we must look forward, and we will not let those who want to take us back be successful. Stability in Northern Ireland is important, and it is about the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, as she knows better than many. We have strived very hard to restore that balance with the Windsor framework. I believe that it does that, and I look forward to working with her and colleagues from across the House so that we can look forward to a brighter future for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Gavin Robinson: I thank the Prime Minister and colleagues right across the House for their care and concern for DCI John Caldwell and his family.
The Prime Minister knows that it is good to talk. He will recall that when we met in November last year, I acknowledged that he had good ideas around the friction in trade, but that I highlighted my concern around the democratic deficit and constitutional harm. Anyone who reads tittle-tattle on a Sunday—yesterday—may recall that I had similar concerns just 10 days ago. However, I genuinely acknowledge that on both constitutional harm and the democratic deficit, progress has been made.
Over the coming weeks and months, as we look to engage with our community and with communities and businesses throughout Northern Ireland to test, probe and tease out the tense aspects of the implementation of this framework agreement, I hope the Prime Minister will recognise that, for us, ratification is important. Does he recognise that, having had so many false dawns and failed starts over the last four or five years of political commitments from the Government side of the House, ratification will need to occur before we can take any final decisions?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and also for the engagement that he has had with me and the Secretary of State. It is good to talk. There has been plenty of that, and it has been extremely valuable in reaching today’s framework and agreement. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will give him and his colleagues and community the time and space to consider the detail, and that I will work with him to answer any questions that they have and to provide any clarifications that I can, so that we can, hopefully, move forward together. I believe that that is what he and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want to do, but he is right, and I acknowledge the frustrations that they feel about what has gone before. I hope that today means that we can start a new chapter as we look forward and build a brighter future for Northern Ireland together, and I welcome doing that with the hon. Gentleman.

Bob Neill: I congratulate the Prime Minister on an exceptional achievement, because we have resolved something that was difficult and we have done it in accordance with law.  I am glad to see the Attorney General here, because the fact that we have acted in accordance with international law is immensely important.
Will the Prime Minister turn his mind to one other, small matter—Gibraltar? I am glad to see the Foreign Secretary here. If we can resolve the issues over Northern Ireland, we can now swiftly move, with his support, to resolve the few remaining issues over Gibraltar. A few adjustments and good sense are required so that it can get itself into a better position in terms of our relationships going forward.

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words of support and assure him that the Foreign Secretary, in particular, is intensely engaged with his counterparts in Spain to try to find a resolution on the issues that are outstanding. I also join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Attorney General for the support and advice that she has provided to us throughout this process. It has been invaluable. She and the previous Attorney General have done exceptional work on this tricky issue, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is pleased with today’s outcome.

Mary Foy: Although I welcome the progress that has been made today, the years wasted by recent Governments in arguing with the Unionist parties instead of negotiating with them to bring about a deal mean that many communities in Northern Ireland have been ravaged by poverty, debt and the rise of paramilitary gangs preying on ordinary people who just want to live their lives. Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that the new protocol will begin to repair the damage that has been done and restore peace and prosperity for all communities in Northern Ireland?

Rishi Sunak: I do believe that the new arrangement we have made—the Windsor framework—provides the basis for peace, prosperity and stability in Northern Ireland. That is why I have brought it forward and why we have worked so hard on it. As we have done so, we have strived very hard to respect the identity and aspirations of all communities in Northern Ireland. Balance is at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The Windsor framework restores that balance and ensures that we can move forward positively together.

Julian Lewis: In difficult negotiations, the late, great Ronald Reagan used to say, “Trust but verify,” which I took to mean, “Be optimistic but have a reserve plan.” It sounds as if the reserve plan here is the Stormont brake, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara) said, that might not apply if, for any reason, Stormont was not sitting. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that there is a plan B that would work under all circumstances?

Rishi Sunak: This is incredibly important. What we should be focused on is Stormont being up and running. The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve their institutions to be functioning for them. I think it is entirely right that we have vested this power—this sovereignty—in the institution that represents them and  do not exercise it on their behalf. Instead our priorities should be getting the institutions back up and running so that sovereignty is restored and the people of Northern Ireland are in control of their destiny.

Alyn Smith: We welcome this, and I commend the achievement that helping mitigate the disaster has represented, but can I dig into the Stormont backstop? I am concerned that in fixing one problem, there is a recipe for further instability going forward. If the petition of concern is the model for what the Stormont backstop is going to be and, as we all admit, there are concerns about the petition of concern, what scope is there going to be for the Secretary of State, going forward, to rule on the—let us be blunt—reasonableness of any such petition? Then, when it gets to the joint committee, in what scenario can that joint committee overrule the petition? If the petition is, at either stage, seen to be politically or legally automatic, surely that cements more problems into this than we are solving tonight.

Rishi Sunak: I just assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a well-defined process for the exercise of the Stormont brake. He is right: there should be, because it is a very serious step. It is a serious and powerful mechanism; it should not be exercised for trivial reasons. It is there to deal with new or amended laws that provide significant and lasting change and impact on the people and communities of Northern Ireland. That is a test that rightly should be met, and there is a defined process for how that has to happen, with consultation that rightly should take place. But ultimately, if that petition of concern mechanism is used—and again, I believe that is the right mechanism to use; it is a Good Friday agreement framework that provides for cross-community safeguards —then the UK Government will have a veto. I believe that as the hon. Gentleman engages with the detail of how that mechanism works, he will see that we have struck the right balance between having something very powerful, but making sure that there is a well-defined and appropriate process leading up to that point.

Edward Leigh: I am not sure that our opinion on mainland Britain is vital in all this. It is a pretty obvious point, but it all depends on our colleagues in the DUP, because unless this exercise gets Stormont up and running, it is pretty futile—indeed, it might be downright dangerous. When the Prime Minister provides space for the DUP in the next few weeks, will he undertake that he will not just listen to their concerns, but if there is something that can get this over the line—a further clarification or a change—he will take that back to the Commission? I can assure him that many of his colleagues on the Government Benches are watching the DUP very carefully, and we will go where they go.

Rishi Sunak: With the greatest respect, I would say to my right hon. Friend that this is also about the people of Northern Ireland. It is about the communities in Northern Ireland and the businesses in Northern Ireland. Whatever happens with the politics, those people will benefit from this agreement, because they are being impacted by the implementation of the protocol, and this framework ensures that we have resolved their concerns and the challenges that they face. They must be uppermost in our mind, and I hope very much that this framework does provide the basis for parties in  Northern Ireland to move forward together positively to consider power sharing, as I hope they will look forward to doing. But this agreement, first and foremost, is about the people in Northern Ireland and the benefits that it will bring to them, and I hope that it will have my right hon. Friend’s support.

Catherine McKinnell: This agreement is clearly welcome, but the Prime Minister must recognise that the Government’s approach prior to this point caused damaging uncertainty, put Britain’s reputation at risk, and undermined business confidence. He must want to do everything possible to make amends for that. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill continues to generate massive uncertainty with its regulatory cliff edge, so in this new spirit of renegotiating decisions and taking a more mature approach, will the Prime Minister also commit to reconsidering the Government’s approach on that issue?

Rishi Sunak: No. It is that approach—talking about it in the hon. Lady’s terms—that creates the uncertainty. It is a perfectly reasonable thing for the United Kingdom to re-examine all the retained EU law that we inherited and decide which bits are for us to keep, which bits are worth scrapping, and which bits are worth amending. That is entirely the appropriate course of action for a sovereign nation, and in doing that, we can provide benefits to families, businesses and communities across the United Kingdom. That is what this Government will deliver.

Kevin Foster: Having spent two years at the Home Office working on the plans to implement the Northern Ireland protocol in full if it had been needed, there are some welcome aspects to this agreement, although there are of course other areas that will need to be studied in further detail. The green and red lanes are welcome. One thought that comes to mind is that there is an EU team based at Belfast port—in fact, that team is hosted in a Home Office facility, because it did not have anywhere of its own. What role does he see that team playing, because, as we are aware, there will inevitably be some attempts to abuse the green lane? Who would take the lead on the law enforcement approach to that, and decide whether that sort of action is taken, to ensure that this is about responding to genuine concerns and that it does not become a way, as we have seen at other borders with the EU, to put checks in place that we would feel were an undue burden?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point from his experience as a Home Office Minister. He is absolutely right that we need to enforce these lanes; that is the assurance that we have rightly provided, and that is why we have those facilities there. What I can say to him is that there are not any routine checks as goods move from GB to NI. Any checks that there are will be because we have reason to suspect smuggling or other criminality, based on intelligence or other risk analysis. That is why we will be intervening, but those checks will not be routine: they will be risk and intelligence based, to deal with exactly the problem that my hon. Friend has highlighted. If we are going to have a functioning green lane, it is right that we enforce that properly.

Gregory Campbell: I join the tributes to the late Betty Boothroyd, and also to the outstanding bravery of DCI John Caldwell in Omagh last week.
When the Prime Minister was at the press conference with Madame von der Leyen this afternoon, he indicated that
“We all collectively share an ambition to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and that’s why there’s a role for EU law in Northern Ireland”.
This is the umpteenth time that this mistake has been made by successive Prime Ministers. There will not be any possibility of a so-called hard border, not because of mark 1 of the protocol or mark 2 of the protocol, but because of the 300-mile land border that has over 280 crossing points, making a hard border an impossibility. Does the Prime Minister agree with what I told him last week: just as years ago, the representatives of nationalism in Northern Ireland needed to be content with governance arrangements in Northern Ireland, equally now, the representatives of Unionism have to be content with governance arrangements going forward?

Rishi Sunak: I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I have spent a lot of time, care and attention listening to, and engaging with, the concerns of Unionism in Northern Ireland—their concerns with the protocol—and they have been uppermost in my mind as we have gone through these deliberations. I have strived and tried my utmost to deliver against those objectives, and I believe that this framework does that.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the role of EU law. I would say to him, his colleagues, and everyone else that that is the reason why it is there, but ultimately, it is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. He knows, as I do, that a consent vote will happen next year that provides approval for that set of arrangements, but I recognise that that is a blunt mechanism, an all-or-nothing mechanism, and it is right that we have greater sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. The Stormont brake delivers that. It allows the Assembly—it allows 30 colleagues from two parties—to decide on the new EU laws, annex 2, that were put in the tests of his party. If those are laws that the hon. Gentleman feels are unacceptable, there will be an ability to block them, working with the UK Government. I think that is a powerful safeguard for Northern Ireland sovereignty. It is something that I hope he gives time and consideration to, and I look forward to engaging with him and his colleagues on it over the coming days and weeks.

Robin Walker: First, I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister about Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell and his family.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on the personal commitment he has made to this process, and in particular on being the first British Prime Minister in over a decade to attend the British-Irish Council, unlocking precious good will through that process. The diplomatic efforts that he and his team have made have been phenomenal. Will the Prime Minister ensure that, as we hopefully reap the fruits of this process through the restoration of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, he maintains that personal engagement in Northern Ireland affairs that is so crucial and continues to listen to the concerns of Northern Irish Unionists, to no detriment to the nationalist community?

Rishi Sunak: Can I thank my hon. Friend for his support? It is an area that I know he knows well, and I can give him that assurance. We will continue to engage, as we have done, with all communities and parties in Northern Ireland. I have paid particular attention to the concerns of the Unionist community and their elected representatives from all parties in this process, because I believe that is the right thing to do. Ultimately, I can give him the assurance that I will continue to be personally involved, committed and engaged with this topic because I am Prime Minister for Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I am Prime Minister for the United Kingdom—and it is a responsibility I take incredibly seriously.

Jonathan Edwards: If I understand the so-called Stormont brake correctly, is it not the case that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have more power over how EU single market rules apply in its territory than the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments have over how UK internal market rules apply in Wales and Scotland?

Rishi Sunak: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has recognised how powerful the Stormont brake is. It is absolutely right given the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland that it does have that sovereignty. It was missing. There was a democratic deficit, given the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, and I am glad that the Windsor framework and the Stormont brake eliminate that democratic deficit and restore the appropriate and right sovereignty to the people of Northern Ireland.

Laurence Robertson: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the progress he has made on what is a very difficult issue. For clarification, can I ask him this? If there is a manufacturer in Northern Ireland whose products have no intention of being exported—they will remain in the internal market—does it obey UK standards, or does it have to obey EU standards?

Rishi Sunak: It will depend on what the manufacturer is producing. For a large chunk of manufacturing goods, there are no international or EU standards; they are all produced to UK standards, whether that is clothing, furniture, bicycles, homewares and the like. The other 3,500 manufacturing goods standards are all international standards. Even though the standards may be named as EU, they are all the same as the ones we have in the UK, because that is what the EU and the UK committed to in the trade and co-operation agreement. If my hon. Friend looks at those 3,500 manufacturing standards, I think he will find that there are only 11 that are different between the EU and the UK. That is 0.3%. In most of those cases, the UK standards are higher, as it turns out, than the EU ones. This is a good framework and a good deal for manufacturing in Northern Ireland. I have spent time engaging with those businesses. They value their dual market access and they value unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom. They want the free flow of goods within the UK internal market. This framework delivers for them and it delivers for the businesses of Northern Ireland.

Paul Blomfield: The Prime Minister gave a devastating critique of the Northern Ireland protocol, negotiated by his predecessor but one, who is conspicuously absent today. Clearly the Prime Minister was right, so this agreement is good news, but can I press him a little further on an earlier answer that he gave? Specifically, will he confirm that the agreement opens up the door to association with Horizon Europe, and will he actively seek it, recognising its importance to our universities and our research ambition as a country?

Rishi Sunak: As I have said, research co-operation is one of the many areas where we continue to co-operate with the EU. Our focus today is on the Windsor framework to ensure that we can resolve the issues of the protocol and move forward for Northern Ireland. That will be our continued focus in the coming days to make sure that we can talk, explain and clarify this particular agreement, but of course, over time, there will be a range of other areas on which we can work with the EU, including energy security and research, but also illegal migration, and I look forward to all those conversations.

Alberto Costa: South Leicestershire is home to one of the largest logistics parks in the whole of Europe. Will the Prime Minister reassure those businesses in South Leicestershire that trade across the UK, and specifically Northern Ireland, that his Windsor framework will allow for smoother trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Rishi Sunak: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The smooth flow of trade around our UK internal market is central to what this framework delivers. It builds on the proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) put forward some years ago. I am pleased that we have been able to put those into practice in the delivery of our green lane, and I know that the cause of the Union is one that my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) cares passionately and rightly about, and I am pleased that this framework strengthens our Union.

Paul Girvan: Before I start, I would like to pass on my thoughts and prayers to DCI Caldwell’s family at this time, as well as to the wider PSNI family, who I know are fearful of what might happen. I do not put this as being any accident; I think the timing of such incidents is crucial to what we are discussing here today.
I just want to ask the Prime Minister about the green and red lanes. I enter a country and I always see a border. At a border, there are green and red lanes, and I still have the perception that I am at a border, because of what I can see, irrespective of being told that there are green and red lanes, and that does cause concern.
There is another aspect that I have real concern about. I am glad that this is called a framework and that it is not an agreement as such. A framework is something that has to be built and added to whereas an agreement is something that is written in stone and cannot be changed, which is what we were told about the so-called protocol deal—those who wanted to change it were told that they could not. I am also glad that several people have been converted to taking a slightly different stance about what we had to endure and what we voted against.
I have many agricultural businesses in my constituency that took cattle backwards and forwards to mainland GB for shows or for sale. I hear today that they might be better to call a cow one of their pets, so that they can bring it back. I want to ensure that that does not happen and that we are allowed to bring back our cattle and everything else. Any involvement in the ECJ is also a major concern for me, because it means that I am still operating under laws that I have had no control about bringing forward.

Rishi Sunak: On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, the whole point of the Stormont brake is that he does have control over those laws. I hope that when he engages with the detail of it, he will see that we have fixed that problem and have put him and his colleagues in the Assembly in charge of their destiny and of ensuring that they are in control of their laws.
The hon. Gentleman talks about agriculture. In fact, from all the engagement and knowledge that I have of the agricultural sector, it is one where dual market access is incredibly important. He talked about cattle: he will know that the dairy industry on the island of Ireland is deeply integrated and the meat processing industry is deeply integrated. All those businesses said to me and to the Secretary of State that they wanted to ensure that there was no disruption to those supply chains back and forth between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and that anything that put them in jeopardy would be a mistake for them and their jobs.
That is what this framework delivers: it ensures that we have protected Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, ensured the free flow of goods around our UK internal market, safeguarded the sovereignty of the Northern Irish people and, crucially, protected exactly those agricultural businesses and the things that were important to them. I hope that, when he studies the detail—I look forward to discussing it with him and his colleagues—he will see that we have struck the right balance and that it is the right thing for Northern Ireland, its businesses and its agricultural industry. I hope that it is something on which he will engage with me.

David Jones: The Command Paper tells us that the framework,
“narrows the range of EU rules applicable in Northern Ireland—to less than 3% overall by the EU’s own calculations”,
which is, of course, highly welcome. Would my right hon. Friend agree to publish a definitive list of the EU rules that will remain, so that hon. Members may consider them when assessing the impact of the agreement?

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to look at that—I think that list already exists—but the key thing is exactly that: it is less than 3%. It is there in black and white—I am not pretending it is not there—and it is there for the reasons that we discussed earlier today. It is about ensuring that there is no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic and that those Northern Ireland producers and businesses that value it have access to the EU single market. Crucially, even though it is less than 3%, it is there with the consent of the Northern Irish people. That is the most important thing—it is less about whether it is 3%, 5% or 2% than whatever is there being there with consent. It was there with the consent vote next year, but that vote was too blunt.
With the Stormont brake mechanism we have ensured that it is the institutions and people of Northern Ireland who decide the laws that they want to adopt, which is the right way to approach this problem. It respects the balance necessary in Northern Ireland and it respects the needs of all communities and what businesses want. I look forward to discussing it with my right hon. Friend in the coming days.

Chi Onwurah: The issues with the Northern Ireland protocol have damaged our communities, our economy and our democracy, so of course I welcome the agreement and look forward to a better working relationship with the European Union, including on science. When the Northern Ireland protocol delays meant that we could not associate with the Horizon programme, the Government committed that every penny meant for science would be spent on science. Some £2.5 billion was set aside for association with Horizon and £900 million was spent on guarantees, but, last week, £1.5 billion was quietly taken out of the budget and back to the Treasury. Now that the Prime Minister has the deal, will he commit to deliver his promises on science?

Rishi Sunak: Just diverting slightly from the Northern Ireland protocol and the new Windsor framework, the Government have committed to spend £20 billion on research and development. It is a record amount. This Government have created a brand new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology because we care about it so much. I know that that is something the hon. Member will support, and that is how we are going to drive growth and prosperity in every part of our United Kingdom in the coming years.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I also pay my tribute to DCI John Caldwell and to his family? I hope he makes a good recovery.
I congratulate the Prime Minister and his team on doing something that many people said was impossible, with a negotiation that contains the red and green lanes, which eases the flow of goods and is in a legal framework that is fundamentally different from the protocol. Does he agree with me that this negotiation—this Windsor agreement—provides the prospect of investors investing with confidence in Northern Ireland to create new jobs, and that it is the people of Northern Ireland who will benefit from this?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is something that I know the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe is specifically focused on. It is about using this framework—this agreement—as the basis to provide certainty and stability in Northern Ireland, and thereby attracting considerable private investment. That is what we are focused on delivering. That is the prize that is available for us if we can use the Windsor framework as a way to move forward and restore power sharing in Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland will have a very special place not just in the UK, but on the European continent. That is incredibly attractive to international investors and businesses. They are keen to see this resolved so that they can start investing, creating jobs and opportunities. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe is keen to deliver.

Kirsty Blackman: Can the Prime Minister be clear with the House that this agreement does not get us any closer to being readmitted to the Horizon Europe programme—to our universities or to Northern Irish universities being readmitted to the programme?

Rishi Sunak: They are two completely separate things. The Windsor framework is about resolving the issues with the Northern Ireland protocol. It is about safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, the free flow of goods around our internal market and sovereignty being restored for the Northern Irish people. The hon. Member will have heard the comments from President von der Leyen earlier today, and the Government’s position on that remains the same.

Richard Graham: As a Northern Ireland Unionist family member, I wholeheartedly congratulate the Prime Minister and all those involved with the Windsor framework on resolving issues that have been so damaging to the integrity of the UK and our own UK internal market, and on providing the best opportunity for Northern Ireland to thrive. So will my right hon. Friend and all the political parties in Northern Ireland now work to resume Government from Stormont as soon as possible, and before the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, so that the people of Northern Ireland get the quality and scrutiny of public services that they deserve?

Rishi Sunak: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of restoring power sharing and the institutions there for the people of Northern Ireland—that is what they need and deserve—but I know he will agree with me that the right thing is to give all communities in Northern Ireland the time and the space to reflect on the detail of this substantive agreement and come to a considered judgment. I look forward to engaging with those communities and parties over the coming days to have that conversation, but I hope that this can provide a basis for us to move forward positively together.

Layla Moran: May I welcome the change in approach, the co-operative spirit with which we have got to this point, and the positive and, I hope, pragmatic relationship moving forward? However, there is one area that has not been mentioned as a potential area on which to work with the EU, and that is agrifoods. We just need to look at the furore this week over turnips versus tomatoes to see what a difference it would make to our constituents in this cost of living crisis. Will the Prime Minister commit to looking again at a UK-EU veterinary agreement that would ease some of the supply chain issues and build on the positive relationship that I note he wants to have with the European Union?

Rishi Sunak: I think that the issues we have seen over recent times have little to do with our institutional and political frameworks, and everything to do with the weather, but we are committed to agrifood innovation. In particular, our gene editing Bill is something that farmers across the UK welcome and we will deliver. It will be good for our food security going forward, and we continue to support our farmers to do that.

Crispin Blunt: This agreement is a remarkable negotiating success, with the EU agreeing to hitherto unique terms in an international treaty. While all associated with this negotiation deserve congratulation, its tone, its courtesy, and its calm and conscientious command of detail were set by the Prime Minister, and he gave our negotiating partners every reason to agree. This deal is a huge tribute to the finest qualities of his leadership.

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for those warm and, I fear, over-generous words. I thank him none the less. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to colleagues sitting behind me, who have worked in private, in confidence, behind the scenes for some months to bring us to this place, supported by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. They deserve enormous credit. It is a collective achievement of minds; many Members of the House in their various ways have contributed to getting to this point. I hope that everyone around the House can now support the agreement as a basis for providing a better future for the people of Northern Ireland.

Stephen Kinnock: The scrapping of tariffs on steel will be welcomed by steelworkers in the Port Talbot steelworks in my constituency, but may I press the Prime Minister on non-tariff barriers? Will he confirm that quotas will also be scrapped? He will be aware that the European Union is introducing a carbon border adjustment mechanism. Will he confirm that the Windsor framework will eliminate the risk of a carbon border in the Irish sea?

Rishi Sunak: The UK Government are also exploring mechanisms for a carbon border adjustment mechanism—it is something the Treasury started consulting on last year. That is one of the dialogues that we have with the European Union, and other countries are considering such mechanisms to ensure that they can work in a complementary fashion. The work for all these things is at a relatively early stage, so there is lots of development work to be done to make sure we implement them.

Ben Spencer: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this historic deal, ensuring that our ongoing relationship with the EU works for all parts of our United Kingdom. Does he agree that Brexit is the beginning of our new relationship, not the end, and that with so many challenges facing us, we will continue to work with all our international partners so that all our agreements, current and yet to be finalised, work to benefit us all?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend and wholeheartedly agree with him. This framework provides a positive basis to move forward. It ensures that we respect the balance of all communities, and I look forward to working with him and other colleagues to ensure that we realise the full potential of what we have achieved today.

Fleur Anderson: This is certainly an entirely different definition of an “oven-ready” deal. Instead of being good to go, it has taken years, has to be eaten in instalments, and with an interim serving of,  by the Prime Minister’s own admissions, a dog’s dinner. This deal is welcome, but Government actions have done serious damage to Britain’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. Looking forward, will the Prime Minister commit today to the Government never again asking Members of this House to vote on legislation that breaks international law?

Rishi Sunak: The Windsor framework provides a legally sound sustainable basis on which to move forward. It brings enormous improvement to the situation in Northern Ireland. It safeguards Northern Ireland’s position in the Union, but it also ensures that it is in a framework of international law. The points made about the Vienna convention are important and are there in the political declaration. That allows businesses, families and communities in Northern Ireland to plan with certainty for the future, and for the brighter future that it can be.

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment and hard work and for the constructive engagement with our European counterparts. As a former sanctions Minister, I know it is crucial to work with our European counterparts to achieve what we need to achieve regarding what happens in Russia. As someone who resigned from the Government in all aspects over Brexit and the delivery of the backstop, with real concerns over sovereignty, I ask the Prime Minister this. Of course what he has tried to do must be welcomed, and he has moved the dial in a constructive way, but on the Stormont brake, the previous emergency brake under David Cameron unfolded with concerns. When the Prime Minister says that time and space will be given to consider that, and that there are details to consider, how long does he think that will be? Will he consider bringing the issue back to Parliament so that we can consider it and look at it in detail?

Rishi Sunak: It is important that people have the time and space to consider that, but I hope we can move through the process with speed, not least because what we all want is a restored Executive in Northern Ireland. That is what people in Northern Ireland need and deserve, and we would all like that to happen as quickly as possible, while respecting the need for communities to discuss the detail. I look forward to doing that, and I will make myself available as quickly as possible.

Martin Docherty: I thank the Prime Minister for spending more than two hours on this statement. I think we all know the importance of it. On page 26 of the Prime Minister’s statement—and on various occasions—he talks about:
“The Windsor framework goes further still, by safeguarding sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland”.
Of course, 56% of the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain within the single market and are getting a Norway-style deal, with Stormont getting a direct say on EU law. Does he therefore not think there is some irony for Scotland, where 62% voted to remain within the single market, but we get absolutely zero?

Rishi Sunak: I do not think the hon. Gentleman recognises the unique and specific circumstances of Northern Ireland: the fact that it shares a land border with the EU; the fact that we want to avoid a hard  border between Northern Ireland and the Republic; and the democratic deficit that existed with regard to the application of EU law. The Stormont brake eliminates that democratic deficit and restores sovereignty to Northern Ireland. No matter what other political differences he and I might have, I hope he can recognise that that is an enormous step forward.

Dean Russell: I join colleagues in expressing my thoughts for DCI Caldwell and his family.
This is a complex deal, with a lot detail. I feel hopeful and confident that time is being given to review the deal and that it is not being rushed. May I therefore pay tribute to the Prime Minister and his colleagues for ensuring that there is space to do that for all in this House?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend. He is right: there is a lot in the agreement. That is because it is a comprehensive agreement that addresses a wide range of issues that were raised with me and my colleagues on the implementation of the protocol. That is why we have something as substantive. It is because of the hard work of my colleagues and the engagement of the European Union. It is why I can say with conviction that it does address the issues that were raised, and that it does secure Northern Ireland’s place in the Union and safeguard sovereignty. As people engage with the detail, I hope they come to the same conclusion.

Geraint Davies: I very much welcome the statement, in particular the sentence:
“we will take further steps to avoid regulatory divergence in future.”
Can we take that to mean that in the EU law revocation Bill we will maximise the reassimilation of EU law and minimise divergence to take full advantage of the economic opportunities for growth in Northern Ireland and in the UK moving forward?

Rishi Sunak: Actually, there are opportunities to do things differently across the UK to drive growth and prosperity, whether in life sciences, financial services, fintech or other areas. We will fully take advantage of those opportunities across the UK. What that refers to very specifically is the work of the Office for the Internal Market, which we have strengthened as a result of the agreement and provided some extra detail about what we do in the Command Paper. That is the right thing to do and I think it will be warmly welcomed in Northern Ireland, particularly in the business community.

Saqib Bhatti: I commend the Prime Minister for what he has achieved today. In 2016, if someone had said while we were campaigning to leave the EU that this is what we would have, we would have jumped at it. Am I right in understanding that what makes this truly a landmark agreement is that it is based in international law, under the Vienna convention on the law of treaties—something that many would have said would not have been achievable?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is right to take us all back some years and to ask what would we have said if this agreement had been available at that moment in time. That is a sensible way to look at what we have achieved and puts it in context. He is also right about the Vienna convention. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who is no longer in his place.  He advised and spoke to me about it. I am pleased that we could secure it and it does have significance of the like that he describes.

Neil Hudson: I very much welcome the Windsor framework, and I congratulate the Prime Minister and his team on securing this historic agreement. Can he confirm that the very sensible and pragmatic veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements within the framework will protect both the UK’s and the island of Ireland’s biosecurity? Can he reaffirm that the long-term availability of medicines in Northern Ireland will very much ultimately include veterinary medicines?

Rishi Sunak: There was a lot in there. My hon. Friend is right that long-standing arrangements have been in place to protect biosecurity on the island of Ireland, and indeed on the respect that the UK has had for the single epidemiological zone on that island. We will continue to respect all of those things. Nothing in the framework changes that. It is something that everyone has agreed with in the past. No one has objected to it and it is right that we continue to move forward with those procedures.

Greg Smith: The headlines of the Windsor framework make it clear that a great deal of progress has been made, and I commend my right hon. Friend for that. I look forward to getting stuck into scrutinising the detail. As I get on with the exercise of seeking to answer the question of whether this framework fully restores Northern Ireland as a full and equal part of the United Kingdom, can the Prime Minister help me to understand how it is that under the Stormont brake—unprecedented as that mechanism is—EU law is still presumed to take primacy with an option to opt out of it, as opposed to UK law being the primary law with an option to opt in to EU law, should that be right for Northern Ireland?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend should recognise that we are talking about less than 3% of EU law. That law applies with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and it is there because it avoids a hard border on the island of Ireland—something that I think everyone agrees with. It also preserves access to the EU single market for Northern Ireland businesses—something that we have heard from colleagues and businesses that they also value. The important point is consent. That is why the Stormont brake is so important; it ensures that it is the institution and the people of Northern Ireland who get to decide whether they think that those laws are appropriate for them. It is a powerful safeguard that ensures that the UK has, if needed, a veto over laws that cause concern. That is why the Windsor framework represents such a decisive breakthrough.

Aaron Bell: Last June I was pleased to speak in favour of and vote for the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, because I believed that   it was a necessary piece of legislation that served as a fall-back to address the legitimate concerns of the Unionist community, and to strengthen our hand in negotiations. Given the result that the Prime Minister has achieved, on which I congratulate him heartily, we have things that we did not think were possible. Does he agree that the Bill is not only no longer necessary but has no basis in law?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he will have seen the note that we published from the Attorney General. While the Bill did have a sound legal basis when it was introduced—and he is right about the impact that it had and the necessity of having it—we have achieved what we needed with the Windsor framework. It is a legally sound, durable agreement that means everyone can plan with certainty, which brings benefits far quicker—indeed, almost immediately—and removes the EU legal cases against us. As he said, we have no legal basis for proceeding with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill now that we have this new agreement. That is why it is the right way forward.

Roger Gale: I call the ever-patient Anthony Mangnall.

Anthony Mangnall: After all that has been said, I am not sure what I can ask that will be new, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will start by congratulating the quartet of negotiators sitting on the Front Bench. In the past two and a bit hours, we have seen the Prime Minister’s detail and knowledge on this subject and the care that he has taken. I hope that this will be the opportunity to unlock the opportunities, through our specialised trade committees, to do better for fishing and aquaculture, and on Horizon and Euratom. Specifically on trade deals and free trade agreements, can he assure me and all members of the International Trade Committee that nothing will impact our ability to sign future free trade agreements, and that Northern Ireland will benefit to the same extent?

Rishi Sunak: That is an excellent note to end on. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. An enormous part of the Windsor framework is ensuring that, in every aspect, Northern Ireland is part of our precious United Kingdom. That is what this framework achieves. It ensures free flow of goods across the United Kingdom internal market. It protects Northern Ireland’s place in our Union, ensuring that people and businesses can enjoy the same benefits in Northern Ireland as they do elsewhere, including in trade deals. Crucially and critically, it restores and safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. It eliminates the democratic deficit. That is why I passionately believe that it is the right thing for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that, as people engage with the detail, they will see that and that it provides a basis on which we can all collectively move forward and build a brighter future for Northern Ireland.

Roger Gale: I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their presence for over two and a half hours of this statement. Whatever our views, I think we can probably feel that this has been an historic occasion.

Boxing Clubs and Social Mobility

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jacob Young.)

James Daly: May I begin by declaring an interest as the proud joint chair of the all-party parliamentary group on boxing? I believe that amateur boxing is a force for social good in this country. The point and purpose of this debate is to highlight not only the fabulous work that is going on in amateur boxing clubs throughout the country, but the real social value that those clubs add.
Given the historic events that we have just been talking about, it is somewhat appropriate that my journey in boxing began—even though I was not yet born—on the cold night of 1 March 1948 at the King’s hall in Belfast, where my great-uncle Gerald “Paddy” Slavin became the heavyweight champion of Ireland. He held the title for a number of years and was No. 8 in Europe. That inspired my late dad, Barry: boxing was his main preoccupation, interest and passion, apart from his family and his children. It is for him that I stand here today.
Let me put the issue into a national context. It is right to acknowledge the great work of England Boxing, which has helped me to prepare for the debate. For those who do not know, it is the national governing body for amateur boxing in England—one of the only sporting governing bodies whose sole focus is separate from the sport’s professional and unlicensed elements. England Boxing has a new strategy in place that goes up to 2027. It has gone through rapid change, but with the support of Sport England and others, it now has an opportunity to grow and build in both competitive and community delivery. It has a membership of more than 1,000 clubs and 25,000 competitive boxers, coaches and officials, with about 150,000 recreational boxers using the clubs each week.
Alongside success in delivering medals at international championships, the sport has a significant record of delivering community programmes and activities in inner cities and local communities. Boxing promotes social mobility and inclusion, positive mental health and wellbeing, and economic growth, all of which are key objectives as the country emerges from the pandemic and tackles the cost of living crisis. The Government are developing their new strategy for the sport, which we expect later this year from the excellent Minister.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He has a very active local boxing club, and so do we in Newtownards. The boxing club in my constituency has been helping young people to train effectively and learn to channel their energy in an appropriate and helpful manner. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that clubs need to be funded to survive, in these days when their financial outgoings are far outstripping their income? With the health benefits that they provide, they deserve investment.

James Daly: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that point, which is salient to the matters that I will discuss. Funding is crucial to the work that boxing clubs do in communities throughout every single part of our United Kingdom. These are clubs run by volunteers;  they need financial support to do their work. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman had more time, he would talk in detail about the work that his local club is doing to change individual lives. There are not many sporting organisations, professional or amateur, that can do what amateur boxing clubs do.

Jim Shannon: Across Northern Ireland, boxing has done other things, too. It has united the two communities —my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) is an example. It is interesting that in Northern Ireland the two things at which we excel are boxing and shooting.

James Daly: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for those comments.
Grassroots and community boxing clubs offer so much more than a space to train. Not only do they provide pastoral and educational support to young people and adults in need, but they are a vital promoter and generator of social mobility and inclusion. They help to tackle criminal activity and antisocial behaviour and to deliver improvements in physical and mental wellbeing. Research published in 2020 by the sport industry research centre at Sheffield Hallam University demonstrates the crucial point that grassroots and community boxing clubs are well placed to support such ambitions. Compared with other sports, boxing can reach deep into diverse communities and appeal to men and women, young people and adults.

Paul Girvan: In a previous life, I became involved in boxing—although not actually in the ring, so I thoroughly enjoyed it. In my community, I have found that becoming involved in boxing steers young people away from drugs and even alcohol, and in many cases that discipline continues into adulthood. It is fantastic to see what it can achieve.

James Daly: Evidence in every town in the country points to exactly that, which is why this is such an important issue. Boxing and social mobility might not normally feature together in a debate, but empirical evidence points to the value added and the way in which people’s lives can be changed. Every conversation that we have in this place should be about how individual policies and groups can change individual lives. It is difficult to think of anything that can change the lives of millions of people in one go, but boxing is doing it for thousands throughout the country.
The sport itself is in a unique position in comparison with others, in that 40% of clubs and members are located in the 20 most deprived parts of the country and 75% in the 50 most deprived. Amateur boxing clubs are in the heart of the least physically active communities in England. Sport England’s active life survey found that people from lower socioeconomic groups—LSEGs—were the most likely to be inactive, at 33%. I am not commenting on how people live their lives; I am simply identifying the places where amateur boxing clubs can make the biggest difference. Given that the overwhelming majority of LSEG communities are located in the most deprived areas, it is clear how vital English boxing clubs are in supporting young people, inclusion and social mobility.

Matt Western: I thank my hon. Friend—if I may call him that—for giving way, and congratulate him on securing the debate. May I take up his point about inclusion and social mobility? He may be interested to know that the famous Turpin brothers, of whom he may have heard, came from my constituency. It was Dick Turpin who broke what was then called the colour bar, and his brother Randolph who won the first world title for a black boxer. As a result of the breakthrough achieved by those brothers, Asian and black sportspeople now perform in national colours for our country.

James Daly: What a wonderful thing to say! The hon. Gentleman and I probably share this experience: my father told me all about Randolph Turpin, and we would have conversations about Don Cockell, Brian London and lots of other boxers. The hon. Gentleman has just drawn attention to the wonderful story—the ultimate tale of social mobility—of two brothers and what they achieved through their passion and determination. I suggest that everyone should read about them, because their achievements were immense.
It is due to the B2022 legacy fund that England Boxing has been able to recruit a cohort of community apprentices from LSEG communities, providing them with employment, education and the opportunity to leave a legacy of their own through the projects and events that they are actively delivering to support others in their local areas. That work is also having a lasting impact on clubs by enabling them to recruit volunteers, deliver engagement events and provide social mobility to support those in the greatest need.
We have already heard of some wonderful examples, but it is only right for me to draw attention to further examples in my constituency. The ultimate example is a man who, in my area, is called legendary—and he truly is, given what he has achieved and the impact that he has had on lives. Bury amateur boxing club was established in 1936 by a man called “Pop” Jelley. His son Mick, who has been given the freedom of the Metropolitan Borough of Bury, was handed the reins about 60 years ago. Mick Jelley has been at the centre of sporting activity in Bury for all those years, finding ways of helping people who have come to him in the most disadvantaging and challenging circumstances. Mr Jelley is a true hero, and more heroes like him need to be identified and celebrated in this place. Mick is the ultimate example of what boxing can do. In 2017, he talked about his experiences, saying:
“The satisfaction does not just come from watching the boys win. It is about helping them grow as people. I have seen lads become men, grow in confidence and find their place in the world. Some have come to me as school drop-outs and gone on to become millionaire businessmen.”
Stories such as these are reported throughout the country.
That very amateur boxing club has now merged with the Bury Defence Academy. Since that partnership commenced, the sport in my area and the boxing club have grown. The Bury Defence Academy offers seven combat sports to its 400 weekly service users, and the facility is a registered charity. The sport of boxing has grown sharply in Bury, and at least 100 more people are involved in it as a result of that partnership. It has opened up boxing to all abilities and levels among boys, girls, men and women. The BDA receives funding via  violence reduction units. This is a boxing club getting Home Office funding and funding from the Ministry of Justice youth sport fund. These funds are being used to combine sport with mentoring, volunteering, training opportunities, anti-gang speeches and various other things.

Dean Russell: In Watford, we have Anthony Joshua. I have not been fortunate enough to meet him, but I know he has done an incredible level of charity work to help the community. When I visited the NRG gym recently, I talked to a person who works there in MMA—mixed martial arts—fighting. He made the point that when young people learn that they can make money from fighting, they no longer want to fight for free on the streets. That was a really important point about antisocial behaviour. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that this is not only about tackling challenges in society and helping with mental health, but about giving people a career and an opportunity to have a ladder up.

James Daly: I could not agree more. What has been proved to me in the three and a bit years my hon. Friend and I have been here is that if we are passionate advocates for our areas and if we live and breathe and want to support positive outcomes for our local communities, there are certain outlets for doing that. The boxing club that we have been talking about is achieving that, and as an MP my hon. Friend is certainly doing exactly the same thing. I congratulate him on that.
I just want to make two further comments about Mick Jelley, because this gets to the heart of what we are talking about. In a 2022 newspaper article, Mick said:
“I’ve been running a club for 60 years. There are lots of lads who came to me and said, ‘But for you, I would be in Strangeways hotel.’”
I think we know that that means a prison.
“What we do is try to keep lads on the straight and narrow and teach them right from wrong. Some of them do go wrong, but then we try to put them back on the straight path.”
What a philosophy for an organisation to have! It operates seven days a week, 365 days a year.
The chair of the Bury Defence Academy is a man called Ifti Ahmed, another wonderful human being. He says:
“A lot of lads come here. It is a kind of refuge for them. This is a diversion that keeps them from a life of crime. We have got to think at the earliest possible stage, how do we give these guys a better life, better opportunities and something positive to aspire to? A lot of the lads have no money in their pocket and they struggle with employment, so they get involved in drugs and gangs. If you nurture them, help them and get them fulfilling their potential through something like combat sport, it’s protecting them from everything else out there.”
That is what this is all about. If we fund these organisations and these people who are doing it for nothing at the moment, just think what we could do with a philosophy and a record of delivery such as that.
There are many other clubs throughout the country, and I have to mention one in particular. I was born and bred in Huddersfield, and my father was born about 10 minutes away from the Rawthorpe amateur boxing club there. It has developed critical hubs in the local community by providing knife crime prevention workshops, mother and toddler classes and boxercise sessions for OAPs, alongside the traditional boxing outlets that it offers.  There is also the Vulcan amateur boxing club in Hull, which became a food bank to feed those of its members in greatest need during lockdown, thanks to funding from the Maverick Stars Trust. For many young people, the boxing club is a sanctuary from the problems they face elsewhere. It is a hub of support that instils life lessons of discipline, respect and teamwork.
I make no apologies for repeating these things, as this work is so important. Some 63% of amateur boxing clubs in England are actively delivering community projects to try to use the sport as a hook to grow social mobility. West Kingsdown amateur boxing club in Kent has, for the past year, been delivering sessions in partnership with Parkinson’s UK to help elderly people in the area to be more active, to slow the progression of the disease, thanks to funding from Sport England. If the NHS were delivering that, we would be overjoyed and singing its praises. This is a boxing club.

Dean Russell: During lockdown a friend of mine, Nonito Donaire, a professional boxer known as “The Flash” who has won titles at many different weights, recorded a video for me to send to Filipino nurses, doctors and staff at Watford General Hospital to thank them for their work. That shows the power of boxing and the power of sport to cross borders to thank people who do not live where they were brought up.

James Daly: I completely agree.
The target audience of these projects are often underrepresented in society: women and girls—69% of projects; lower socioeconomic groups and crime prevention —67%; and disability and inclusion—41%. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will mention, England Boxing is incredibly grateful for the funding it receives from Sport England. Through the £0.5 million provided by the tackling inequalities fund and the together fund, England Boxing has supported clubs to deliver such projects over the past two years. Ethnically diverse communities make up 22% of England Boxing’s members. I celebrate and thank Sport England for that funding, but I would like to highlight what work could be done if there were the opportunity of more funding.
England Boxing and clubs throughout the country are waiting to have their potential released so that they can do the work they want to do in the community.

Matt Western: Funding is important. I have a very successful gym in my constituency that the Turpins essentially got started. Ed Cleary, who runs the gym, works across the community. We have two terrific young girls, aged 12 and 13, who did phenomenally well at the Europeans—Jaya Kalsi and Serena Mali. Another boxer, Lewis Williams, won heavyweight gold at the Commonwealth games. The important thing is that the gym is run by volunteers as a not-for-profit. They do fantastic work across the community, but they need support from the likes of Sport England, and I hope they get it.

James Daly: I sincerely hope they do. We are in a world in which it is not reasonable to demand unlimited resources for anything, but we are always looking for projects that have a record of delivery. One of the elixirs of politics is partnership between public sector funding and voluntary or community organisations, because the state sometimes does not have that anchor in the community. Boxing clubs can deliver that.
I reiterate the hon. Gentleman’s excellent point. With more than 95% of all clubs being run by just two or three dedicated volunteers with the time, skill and knowledge required to capitalise on the unique and trusted position of these clubs to support disadvantaged people who are often missed, there is rarely time for these volunteer coaches to set up and deliver a new project after opening the club for, on average, three evenings a week and then sacrificing weekends and holidays to transport and coach boxers at competitions and events. They also maintain the gym, order new equipment and deal with club administration, usually on their own and free of charge, throughout the year.
This is all taking place in buildings that I think we would all agree have substandard facilities, with club volunteers and members alike simply making do as best they can to maintain their gym. In many areas, they simply cannot find an appropriate place to have a gym in the first place. Some 66% of clubs have written rental or hire agreements in place, with fewer than half having five years or more left on the agreement, meaning that nearly 700 amateur boxing clubs have either no security or tenure or less than five years before they potentially find themselves without a home. This is about sustainability. Sport England, England Boxing and club officers throughout the country are looking to work proactively with government, local councils and local mayoralties to find ways and solutions to make sure that clubs have a sustainable future.
I would welcome a comment from the Minister on one other serious issue. We have seen an explosion in white-collar boxing, but England Boxing and the Government do not yet have the authority or legislation in place that other nations have to prevent event organisers from operating outside the rules and guidelines set by the national governing bodies of amateur boxing. Does the Department plan to tackle the issue of white-collar unlicensed boxing, given that there is no accountability to the EB, the national governing body or any specific legislation?
The other points I raise are about funding and facilities. I have a tendency to want to say when we have good people answering questions and I know that this Minister is a good man. I know that he will support such projects in his area and throughout the country. If there is a way to have a meeting to develop a relationship between the Government and EB, I know that he will be open to that and to finding ways to support the great work that is being done.
Community boxing clubs should be front and centre of the Government’s new sports strategy and levelling-up agenda. They are a vital social mobility generator and play a unique role in supporting mobility, inclusion and regeneration in constituencies throughout the country. Along with EB and many others, I am calling on the Government to fully harness the power of grassroots and community boxing clubs in their new sports strategy.
When we look at amateur sport throughout this country, be it sport for younger people or for older people, we see that the position of boxing clubs is unique. I have seen and worked with some of the greatest amateur clubs and people involved in football, cricket and all sorts of other sports, but the work being done by these clubs is overlooked and ignored. It is a wonderful thing to be able to stand here to celebrate every amateur boxing club in the country, everybody who gives their time and  everyone who is working to improve the lives of just one person or 10 or 20. I pay tribute to every person and the work of England Boxing in trying to keep everyone safe while all this good work is happening.

Stuart Andrew: I am pleased to respond to this debate and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) for securing it. Given his family’s heritage in boxing and the experience of boxing that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) has, I am anxious to get my response to this debate right. The contributions made by Members from across the Chamber this evening show the importance that the House places on support for grassroots sport and, in particular, boxing clubs. Members have rightly mentioned the many volunteers and coaches who give up a tremendous amount of time. Many of our sporting facilities would simply not exist if it were not for people giving of their time and sometimes their own money in support of the work they do. I was interested to hear about the experiences of Mr Jelley. I was also pleased recently to visit a boxing club in Bradford to see for myself the tremendous work that was going on there, particularly with people who perhaps felt that they were overlooked in terms of their opportunities. I hope to talk more about that shortly.
All Members will agree that these clubs provide people, wherever they may be in the country, with fantastic opportunities to lead healthy lives, unlock their potential and make new friends in life. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone, no matter what their background is, has the opportunity to participate in sport. To make that possible, Sport England has, since 2019, invested more than £12 million into boxing, including £2.3 million-worth of support to boxing clubs during the covid pandemic. Like all sports, boxing has the unique ability to unite communities and connect people to those who otherwise would never have crossed their paths. The examples that we heard from colleagues from Northern Ireland particularly articulated that well.
Big fight nights, such as December’s Tyson Fury v. Derek Chisora or last October’s Savannah Marshall v. Claressa Shields, create exciting moments of sporting theatre. But beyond the drama at the elite level, sport has the ability to unlock potential by giving young people essential leadership and resilience skills. Throughout the debate, we have talked about the important contribution that sport makes to social mobility. Social mobility, just one of many areas in my portfolio, is one on which I am particularly keen, because unlocking people’s potential early on in life is a great thing for us to be able to do, and makes sure that we get the very best out of young people for their lives ahead.
Research commissioned by Sport England shows that for every £1 invested in community sport there is a return of £4 of wider social and economic value. That is why, as a Government, we are committed to ensuring that everyone across the country has access to high-quality provision. Last year’s active lives survey shows that, between mid-November 2020 and mid-November 2021, just over six in 10 adults—28 million—achieved 150 minutes or more of activity a week, with those from lower  socio-economic groups and deprived areas more likely to be less active. We know that opportunities to participate in sport are not equal across the country, which is why we are working with Sport England to provide direct support to the organisations and communities in the areas that need it the most. Over the past 12 months, 19.2% of Sport England’s local level investment has been for projects in index of multiple deprivation 1 areas.
We recognise that we need to maintain progress in this area. This year, as my hon. Friend alluded to, we will be publishing a new sport strategy that will set out how we will continue to support people, no matter who they are or where they are from, to enjoy the benefits of participating in sport. For me personally, dealing with issues around community inclusion, bringing communities together and providing access to sport for women and girls will feature heavily in that sport strategy. It will also concentrate on addressing current disparities in participation, supporting children and young people and ensuring that everyone has the facilities that they need to be active. Helping to ensure that those from hard-to-reach communities get opportunities to play sport is something that matters to me personally, and I look forward to working with Members across the House to make progress in this area. I see grassroots sport as being key to achieving many of those ambitions.
Sport, and in particular sports such as boxing, can also play an important role in tackling youth violence, and can have a transformative impact in prevention and early intervention work with children at risk of offending behaviour. During the summer, I spent a few weeks as the prisons Minister. On a visit to a young offenders’ institute, I spoke to two individuals who, sadly, did not have the opportunities to which we are alluding. I saw that their lives now will be spent primarily in the criminal justice system. These were two particularly articulate young people and it struck me that, had they been given an alternative path to go down, they might be contributing to our society, saving our public purse a great deal of money.
Last November, the Ministry of Justice announced a £5 million sport fund to deliver “Sport for Crime Prevention” programmes. This funding will deliver grants to around 200 local projects, which deliver targeted support for children considered to be at-risk of entering the justice system due to identified need or additional vulnerabilities. The projects funded through the programme will build on some of the fantastic programmes that are already being run by community boxing clubs across the country, and I thank them for that. Schemes include the Clink to Club programme, which provides transitional support and guidance on the benefits of boxing and mental wellbeing for inmates at Brixton and Bronzefield prisons before they are reintegrated in their local communities and club.
A number of Members have also approached me about the impact of energy bills on clubs, and my hon. Friend was right to mention some of the facilities in which they operate. I recognise that this is a challenging area for those clubs. That is why we are working very closely with the sector to support it through the current challenges, with boxing clubs eligible for support under the energy bill relief scheme and its successor programme.
My hon. Friend referred to white-collar boxing. The safety, wellbeing and welfare of everyone taking part in sport is always absolutely paramount. Although there  are always risks associated with participating in contact sport, it is important that robust measures are in place to reduce the risk of major injuries and health issues. We urge all boxing event organisers to work with the sport’s governing bodies to ensure that robust competition standards are in place to protect the safety of those who are taking part. I understand the issues that my hon. Friend was talking about. He asked for a meeting to discuss them further, and I am more than happy to oblige him in that request.

Martin Vickers: I thank the Minister for his comments. May I draw his attention to the Trin Centre in Cleethorpes, whose boxing academy is overseen by Andy Cox and an excellent team of volunteers? To return to the issue of sustainable funding for these organisations, could the Minister give an assurance that he will do all he can to ensure that it is much easier to get continuity of funding once an initial grant has been established? These organisations spend so much time having to complete forms and it is a complicated process. If he could do anything to streamline that process, that would be very welcome.

Stuart Andrew: Before I was elected to this House, I worked in the charity sector, so I know how complex many of those forms are and how long it takes to fill them out. That is an area I am keen to look at. I have regular meetings with bodies such as Sport England, so I will be sure to arrange to discuss that at my next meeting with them.
Sport has real power to change lives, as evidenced particularly well by colleagues across the House this evening, not just through the benefits it can have on an individual’s health, but through the role that local clubs can play in fostering relationships and breaking down barriers in communities. That is why this Government are committed to ensuring that everybody has the opportunity to benefit from playing sport and physical activity. We will continue to work to address the disparities in opportunity, both through Sport England funding and through our upcoming sport strategy, recognising the important role that sport plays in many of our communities.
Finally, I recognise the huge contribution that many of these clubs provide in the community activity to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North alluded. During the pandemic, many sporting clubs up and down the country really stood up and helped the communities in which they are based. They make a huge contribution and are more than just sporting facilities and sporting clubs; they are intrinsically at the heart of the communities in which they serve. For that I thank them, and I also thank all hon. Members for their time in this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.